Then why couldn’t we get rid of DUMBO under the same clauses or Constitutional stated origins? It’s been tried for 7 years and hasn’t worked. Just makes good fodder for the press.
Nor does it address the Military Base born issue to 2 US Citizens. Military bases are not American soil. So that child carries dual citizenship up until they are 18 or was the age at the time my step daughter was born in Japan in a Navy Base Hospital. McCain got away under that.
But Military Bases are NOT US SOIL. US Citizenship comes from the parent(s) with this factor. Or those who travel overseas and might be born in a foreign country today. It is a grey area that has not been truly addressed. When the Constitution was framed there was very little travel outside the US and we did not have Military bases abroad. Only the wealthy class could travel overseas at that time or they were government sent like Ben Franklin was.
It does raise questions that the USSC has not addressed in a strong manner. That is why we have the ability to admen the Constitution. Many of our laws depend on a Statue coming out of the Constitution.
If you come down to fact on the 2nd Amendment NO gun restriction law is Constitutional.
Born abroad is easier to argue, just by the structure and text of the constitution (it is a jus soli arrangement).
Why we can't get anything done is rooted in the elites having control of the "official narrative." If the candidates don;t make challenges against each other, and the courts punt (or make up new law with more handwaving), the people are merely spectators.
US citizenship starts first with citizenship of the parents, citizenship in a STATE. That is strongly determined by domicile and residence, but I don;t cease to be a citizen of Illinois when I go to Wisconsin for a day or a week or whatever.
-- But Military Bases are NOT US SOIL. US Citizenship comes from the parent(s) with this factor. --
That is citizenship by blood, and there is an Act of Congress that creates and confers US citizenship as a matter of US law.
-- It does raise questions that the USSC has not addressed in a strong manner. --
On birth abroad, it's been addressed. The anchor baby issue is interestingly, an issue because it creates so many who have deemed to be citizens-at-birth. IMO, SCOTUS got it wrong in Wong-Kim-Ark, and children of alien parents are citizens of their parent's country, not of the US. The 14th amendment is being improperly applied.
-- If you come down to fact on the 2nd Amendment NO gun restriction law is Constitutional. --
That's what SCOTUS said in the Miller case, except it said if the arm had a military use, then it couldn't be restricted. Then a bunch of activist appeals courts read the case for the opposite of what it says, and the falsehood became the truth.
Just like the falsehood that citizen-at-birth=NBC can become the truth. All that has to happen is the people believe. The sun orbits the earth -500 years ago, that was considered metaphysical truth.
Unless they are within the confines of one or more states or territories of the United States.