Timeline for Will SCOTUS be forced to rule on birthright citizenship soon?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2022 at 19:23 | comment | added | David | How about "this is the same guy who tried to orchestrate overthrowing the government when his candidate lost the election". Sure, we didn't know it back then, but it certainly adds weight to the argument that he's a partisan hack. | |
| Sep 12, 2022 at 21:33 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | @Justaguy - How about "his argument is non-partisan but anti-immigrant, and his not applying to Ted Cruz is naked partisanship"? | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 17:35 | comment | added | Just a guy | @phoog Eastman's 2008 article and testimony had nothing to do with McCain. They were about birthright citizenship for undocumented aliens under the 14th Amendment. McCain's eligibility involves a statute, not the Constitution. FWIW, I think Eastman's argument is many bad things. I simply don't think his record justifies dismissing it as "naked partisanship." | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 17:17 | comment | added | phoog | @Justaguy and what was the political contest of the 2008 articles and testimony? Was he arguing that John McCain shouldn't be qualified to be president? | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 17:16 | comment | added | phoog | Indeed. If owing allegiance to a foreign state is tantamount to not being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then how is it that foreigners are arrested, charged, tried, and punished for crimes? How are they subject to civil suits? | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 7:59 | comment | added | David | A person convicted of treason has been shown to have no loyalty to the United States, but is very much under its jurisdiction. | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 7:58 | comment | added | David | His argument conflates loyalty and jurisdiction. By implication, he's saying that anyone born with dual citizenship can't be natural-born. | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 7:31 | comment | added | Just a guy | I don't see how it's possible to dismiss Eastman's analysis as "naked partisanship." This implies he came up with this analysis because it hurts Kamala Harris. This just isn't true. Eastman started making this argument over a decade ago -- he was writing articles using this argument and testifying about in front of Congress in 2008. | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 6:44 | comment | added | David | I think they're both fairly clear. The discussion here mentions how the treatment has changed over the early years, regarding which parents had to be citizens, etc. for a birth abroad to count, and the fact that articles have been written is because more people have questioned it. But that's my opinion. harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/… | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 6:25 | comment | added | David | I agree that Cruz is a citizen. I'm in the same category. I'm just saying it's even more obvious that being born in the US makes anyone a citizen, other than the children of diplomats. | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 6:23 | comment | added | Just a guy | Do you have a source for your claim about what's "generally accepted"? Before the last election, a Bush and a Clinton SG wrote this about Ted Cruz in the HLR: "Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution." harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/… | |
| Aug 17, 2020 at 5:34 | comment | added | MWB |
generally accepted it isn't generally accepted, according to the editors: newsweek.com/…
|
|
| Aug 17, 2020 at 2:55 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Aug 17, 2020 at 7:05 | |||||
| Aug 17, 2020 at 1:44 | history | answered | David | CC BY-SA 4.0 |