Posted on 05/27/2010 4:32:12 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
“2). They are subject to its jurisdiction.”
Really? They pay taxes? The father has to register for the draft?
I didn’t know that...
The reality is that the ‘wise latina’ and the other liberals on the SCOTUS would almost certainly rule that ANYONE born here is a citizen. It would be a fight to prevent them from ruling that ANYONE, ANYWHERE is a US citizen, regardless of where they were born and where they live - all in the interest of fairness.
I’m absolutely certain that citizenship by birth regardless of circumstance is NOT part of the Constitution. Getting the SCOTUS to rule IAW my views is probably impossible, given the make-up of the court.
Until we win at the ballot box, repeatedly, for 20+ years, the courts will give conservatives very few victories on anything.
Strawman argument.
Please show me where I stated the rights of women [or the lack thereof] was an immutable Law.
You wrote ...the Founders designed our country to operate under a certain set of immutable Laws that operate outside the control of Man.
What are the immutable laws under which our country operates?
The supreme court of the United States has jurisdiction exclusively, in all such suits or proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction, of all suits brought by ambassadors or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice consul shall be a party.
St. George Tucker1803
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
There has been a difference of opinion among writers, concerning the foundations of this law. It has been considered by some as a mere system of positive institutions, founded upon consent and usage; while others have insisted that the law of nations was essentially the same as the law of nature, applied to the conduct of nations, in the character of moral persons, susceptible of obligation and laws. We are not to adopt either of these theories as exclusively true. The most useful and practical part of the law of nations is, no doubt, instituted or positive law, founded on usage, consent, and agreement. But it would be improper to separate this law entirely from natural jurisprudence, and not to consider it as deriving much of its force, and dignity, and sanction, from the same principles of right reason, and the same view of the nature and constitution of man, from which the science of morality is deduced. There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries
-----
If you should care to read it: Law of Nations
They are subject to its jurisdiction in that the laws that apply to citizens of the United States apply to the children born in the United States. The children don’t pay taxes or have to register for the draft — at least not when they’re children — but neither do any children of parents who are native or naturalized citizens.
Are the parents in the jurisdiction of the US at the time of birth? Well, usually the father is still in Mexico, and the mother is here illegally - so by definition, she is NOT in submission to our laws. Therefor, the child is being born contrary to the jurisdiction of the US.
The courts will not fix it. It would require a Constitutional amendment - one that could not pass in the current state of politics. Even then, the ‘wise latina’ and her friends would do whatever was required to interpret it away.
But no one reading WKA would think that the 14th amendment would be twisted to make the child of illegals citizens. Not IMHO.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Loser argument in court despite what AZ state senator russell pearce may believe.
I agree. The courts would use the opportunity to expand citizenship, if anything. Not because it is right, but because they are all-powerful - he who controls interpretation of the Constitution controls the Constitution itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.