Reply to Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.[/quote]

And lots of other people.  This is really silly to have a president just be able to change the Constitution with an order.  They're going to get rid of every other piece of the Constitution depending on who is in office.  [b]Change the amendment the way you're supposed to change the amendment.[/b][/quote]

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly. 
signed, lifelong Democrat
[/quote]

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.  [/quote]

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy.   It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?  [/quote]

Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it. [/quote]

Yes, it is changing it.  It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.  [/quote]

From 1788 until 1964 the interstate Commerce Clause was read to limit Congress’s regulation of intrastate commerce.  Until it was interpreted that because a BBQ restaurant sources products from out of state, Congress’s proscription on discrimination against customers was actually regulation of interstate commerce.  [/quote]

Which pre-1964 case said Congress couldn't regulate intrastate commerce?[/quote]

Well the Constitution says Congress can only regulate “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.”  And then what is not specifically enumerated is reserved to States in the 10th Amendment. So there’s that. [/quote]

And that has been interpreted since the founding to allow regulation only intrastate commerce.  One of the first SCOTUS cases in history held that.  So much for your gotcha.[/quote]

I think you don’t know the difference between interstate and intrastate.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics