With all due respect, what about my comment makes that ironic? I’m generally quite careful not to post if the only thing I have to offer is an opinion, and try to keep opinion out of it entirely.
> What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller.
That’s basically what was done prior to Heller. Not for “everyone”, but functionally for several minority groups. Since Heller those efforts have primarily been at the state level (which is somewhat different, even with incorporation).
> This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
Prior to today, I wasn’t super familiar with the case law here. It does look like SCOTUS has ruled in the past: US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
It’s after 4am here, and Wong Kim Ark is a long ruling. I simply don’t have the attention remaining to read the whole thing right now, but I skimmed it and ran it through my a couple of LLMs. In skimming it, it appears to be applicable here both broadly and specifically. All the LLMs I’ve tried agree with that statement, including when phrased in the negative.
In short: I was wrong, I believe you’re correct, and this EO should be overturned citing this precedent.
——
As we’ve spoken of opinion, I’ll break with my normal course and state plainly: I believe birthright citizenship should be ended. However, given what I know now, the only acceptable way to do so would be a Constitutional amendment.
I’m opposed to anything that oversteps governmental authority, regardless of whether or not it happens to serve my own political interests at the time.
> This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.
The recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned Chevron deference limited the ability of such organizations to interpret the law. If the law does not make it clear then it (now) must be interpreted by a judge. I assume the irony they are referring to is in thinking this Supreme Court would have ruled in a seeming contrary way in this case. (It is a bit ironic but is also beside the point, which I guess explains why they put it in a parenthetical.)
----
> I believe birthright citizenship should be ended.
I am curious to understand why you take this position. Would you mind explaining your perspective?
With all due respect, what about my comment makes that ironic? I’m generally quite careful not to post if the only thing I have to offer is an opinion, and try to keep opinion out of it entirely.
> What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller.
That’s basically what was done prior to Heller. Not for “everyone”, but functionally for several minority groups. Since Heller those efforts have primarily been at the state level (which is somewhat different, even with incorporation).
> This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
Prior to today, I wasn’t super familiar with the case law here. It does look like SCOTUS has ruled in the past: US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
It’s after 4am here, and Wong Kim Ark is a long ruling. I simply don’t have the attention remaining to read the whole thing right now, but I skimmed it and ran it through my a couple of LLMs. In skimming it, it appears to be applicable here both broadly and specifically. All the LLMs I’ve tried agree with that statement, including when phrased in the negative.
In short: I was wrong, I believe you’re correct, and this EO should be overturned citing this precedent.
——
As we’ve spoken of opinion, I’ll break with my normal course and state plainly: I believe birthright citizenship should be ended. However, given what I know now, the only acceptable way to do so would be a Constitutional amendment.
I’m opposed to anything that oversteps governmental authority, regardless of whether or not it happens to serve my own political interests at the time.