Et Tu, John Yoo?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let me clarify. I believe the authors of the 14th would never have accepted that parents in illegal status should be rewarded with citizenship for their children. No. Never envisioned, never intended, never should have become custom, and would never had been, but for misrulings by some old men in black robes.

Unintended consequences happen. The Framers of the Amendment were brilliant men, just as the Framers of the Constitution and the BoR were, but they weren't omniscient. They simply did not envision the world that we live in now and all the possible negative implications of birthright citizenship.

Let me give you one more example of something that the Founders couldn't possibly have envisioned and would never condone.

They enshrined protections against government interference with the free exercise of religion for all the people in the United States, but they never imagined that Islam could actively work to overthrow our system of government and wage war against the U.S. all of it  under the protection of the First Amendment. 

Yet, they're doing it and while that could not possibly be the intent of the Founders when they crafted the 1A, that's what their efforts are yielding today.

[famousdayandyear]

Unintended consequences happen. The Framers of the Amendment were brilliant men, just as the Framers of the Constitution and the BoR were, but they weren't omniscient. They simply did not envision the world that we live in now and all the possible negative implications of birthright citizenship.

Let me give you one more example of something that the Founders couldn't possibly have envisioned and would never condone.

They enshrined protections against government interference with the free exercise of religion for all the people in the United States, but they never imagined that Islam could actively work to overthrow our system of government and wage war against the U.S. all of it  under the protection of the First Amendment. 

Yet, they're doing it and while that could not possibly be the intent of the Founders when they crafted the 1A, that's what their efforts are yielding today.

The only thing I disagree with is the general characterization of Islam as a religion--in the same vein we regard Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and so on. 

Experts on Islamic law and practice agree that it is largely a theocratic political system using violence, fear, intimidation, terror, and slavery to advance its supreme goal--a global caliphate.

I do not think the First Amendment should ever encompasses such a movement; and I believe it is a great mistake for those who do not recognize Islam for what it is, to equate it with the true religions mentioned above.

Just my thought on this specific subject.  Thank you.

[Godzilla]

I agree with Luis on this. As far as I know, the issue has been settled by The Supreme Court.  Anyone born on US land is a US citizen. Period. And, as Ted Cruz says, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn.

Are you going to question my motives, too, because I don't self-identify as Hispanic? 

Aren't we above this kind of bullshit on TBR?

Nativists have found their scapegoat for all the ills of the world.

The last time America saw this level of demagoguery against immigrants, we saw the rise of the Know-Nothing party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

[Luis Gonzalez]

The only thing I disagree with is the general characterization of Islam as a religion--in the same vein we regard Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and so on. 

Experts on Islamic law and practice agree that it is largely a theocratic political system using violence, fear, intimidation, terror, and slavery to advance its supreme goal--a global caliphate.

I do not think the First Amendment should ever encompasses such a movement; and I believe it is a great mistake for those who do not recognize Islam for what it is, to equate it with the true religions mentioned above.

Just my thought on this specific subject.  Thank you.

We can all disagree all we want on whether Islam, or Mormonism, or Rastafarianism, or Unitarian Universalism are religions, but if what constitutes a religion is contingent on the approval of those who are members of that religion, then there is no real religious freedom.

Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, sharing Abraham as a common beginning.

Islam is a religion.

[aligncare]

Nativists have found their scapegoat for all the ills of the world.

The last time America saw this level of demagoguery against immigrants, we saw the rise of the Know-Nothing party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

I'm an immigrant, naturalized at 37. Pretty hard to say I'm an American nativist when I'm native to Sicily.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Wow, another amateur Constitutional scholar is heard from. ]]

Speak for yourself, Luis.

You have consistently been promoting (pushing?) that the 14th Amendment, "as is", mandates birthright citizenship. That is, that anyone physically born in the United States is automatically a "citizen" of the United States.

Very well. Your opinion is as good as anyone else's.
Indeed, I tend to agree with you.
Unless there is:
1. An attempt by the Congress to deny the concept of birthright citizenship, that is:
2. Challenged in the Supreme Court...
... that it is going to remain "the law of the land".

Again, very well.

But your constant posting regarding this begs a question:
Is this something that YOU, Luis Gonzalez, WANTS?

I sense that yes, you DO want it to be -- and to REMAIN -- the law of the land.

That's very telling.
Why do you want this?

If you deny that you want this, what do you suggest to change it?

We have a sitting President who believes himself to be the law of the land, and  a leading contender for the Republican nomination who seems to think that's how Presidents should conduct themselves, and that it is up to the POTUS to change the legal rulings by the SCOTUS on the issue of birthright citizenship because "a lot of people don't think" that's right, and "many lawyers" agree with him.

We're not governed by mob rule, and if we're OK with Amendments being modified by Presidents because "a lot of people" want it that way, you better be prepared to watch the 2A go down in flames.

That's not we do things in this country, and what I want is not one more Imperial Presidency ever, and that the Constitutional process be respected by all.

The SCOTUS has addressed this issue several times, and if they address it again, their ruling, whatever that should be, should stand until a time when the issue comes before them again, because the Constitution mandates that a process be adhered to. It does not however guarantee outcome.

Your insinuations are offensive. 

P.S. I posted that to aligncare AFTER he called me an amateur Constitutional scholar because I posted that I agreed with John Yoo and Ted Cruz on the issue, then proceeded to turn around and post that he agreed with the author.

Sauce for the goose...

[famousdayandyear]

We can all disagree all we want on whether Islam, or Mormonism, or Rastafarianism, or Unitarian Universalism are religions, but if what constitutes a religion is contingent on the approval of those who are members of that religion, then there is no real religious freedom.

Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, sharing Abraham as a common beginning.

Islam is a religion.

Don't be upset, but I'm having trouble understanding your response.
Mohammed became extremely violent circa 622 at Medina.  His post Medina writings reflect that violence;

I cannot image the First Amendment would condone the "free exercise thereof" those principles laid out in the writings or the hadiths. 
Raping young girls, killing non-believers or those who leave Islam?
We see that Christians are being eradicated in Iraq, Syria, Egypt -- and the US is NOT accepting Syrian Christians, only Muslims right now.

Islam is in direct conflict with the US Constitution.
Call it a religion as you wish.
One day in the not too distant future, you will appreciate my POV.

What I am writing is civil dialogue
Please accept it as such

[Luis Gonzalez]

Don't be upset, but I'm having trouble understanding your response.
Mohammed became extremely violent circa 622 at Medina.  His post Medina writings reflect that violence;

I cannot image the First Amendment would condone the "free exercise thereof" those principles laid out in the writings or the hadiths. 
Raping young girls, killing non-believers or those who leave Islam?
We see that Christians are being eradicated in Iraq, Syria, Egypt -- and the US is NOT accepting Syrian Christians, only Muslims right now.

Islam is in direct conflict with the US Constitution.
Call it a religion as you wish.
One day in the not too distant future, you will appreciate my POV.

What I am writing is civil dialogue
Please accept it as such

Rape and killing are against the law in U.S., and they're not protected by the First Amendment, so that's not relevant to whether or not Islam is a recognized religion in the U.S. It is.

I share your concern, but I was trying to point out that the Founders could not possibly foresee every possible consequence of their actions in crafting the Constitution.

In fact, in 1993 the SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the City of Hialeah (Miami-Dade County) had violated the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment when it passed laws prohibiting the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye from conducting ritual animal sacrifices within the City limits.

I don't know that the Founders intended the 1A to protect animal sacrifices.

P.E.T.A. was enraged.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above (regarding mistakes of The Founders):
[[ They enshrined protections against government interference with the free exercise of religion for all the people in the United States, but they never imagined that Islam could actively work to overthrow our system of government and wage war against the U.S. all of it  under the protection of the First Amendment. 

Yet, they're doing it and while that could not possibly be the intent of the Founders when they crafted the 1A, that's what their efforts are yielding today. ]]

You are exactly correct on that, Luis.

Which is why I believe that this:
====================
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

...should be changed to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."
=====================

Of course, the chances of that happening are.... how shall we say? ..... not so good.