>Dinkin’ With The 14th?

11 Aug

>Don’t.

A. McDonald was won on 14th-Amendment grounds. Subsequent court cases will rely on the Second Amendment being incorporated against the States via the 14th — unless Senator Moron (both parties, all states) opens up the Pandora’s box and they start “improving” it. Camel’s nose, anyone?

B. In re citizenship: Early on, courts and congresscritters held the “and” in the part that follows the bit about bein’ born or naturalized here could not be construed to mean “or;” it worked just like a real AND does, and what it links up is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Please remember the context: in order to be “subject to the jurisdiction,” one had to “show allegiance,” which lawbreakers are not. If Ma and Pa are here illegally when you are whelped, does that invalidate your shot at citizenship? I dunno; it bugs me in that there’s a whiff of “corruption of the blood“* to it but I could see a court ruling that way. This has always existed; automatic “birthright citizenship” is an act of beneficence, implied in dicta but never explicitly ruled on.

C. Will someone please sit Mike Keefe of USA Today down and ‘splain to him what “nuanced” means? ‘Cos there’s “simplifed” and then there’s “stupefied,” and then there’s the whole other level he broke through the basement floor to find. (I hope that link holds, but look fast; here’s the slideshow it’s from).
_____________________
* Prohibited in a specific manner in the U. S. Constition; totally barred in any connection by the Indiana Constitution. Other terms and conditions may apply in different States of the Union. Dealer prep and destination charges not included.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “>Dinkin’ With The 14th?”

  1. Ed Rasimus 11 August 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    >In simple form, "dinkin' with the 14th" is tough because it requires 2/3 of both chambers to propose and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify. In reality, the "dinkin'" becomes legislation which then must be challenged by someone suffering a tort and with standing in the court (Dred Scott anyone? Buehler?…Buehler?)And then you must gain cert and even then the Supremes might discern one of those pesky penumbras. "The law is an ass," said Mr. Bumble.

  2. Nathan 11 August 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    >Actually he said "The law is a ass."Why can't anyone get that right?

  3. Ed Rasimus 12 August 2010 at 1:21 am #

    >Dickens was a terrible grammarian.

  4. Anonymous 12 August 2010 at 4:13 am #

    >No need to. The silly notion that U.S. citizenship applies to illegal aliens comes from a footnote from one Supreme Court justice (Brennan) in 1982.This notion that illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship crept into the law in a footnote in Plyler v. Doe. Brennan's lunatic assertion came from a book published around the turn of the century, not the actual language of the 14th or the Framers (in fact Howard is on record as saying aliens could not do this) intent.Anchor babies were created in the Left's rights factory of the fantasyland wing of SCOTUS.Shootin' Buddy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: