well isn't that the question? and why might it be rewritten or reinterpreted? Could it be that Our Founding Fathers (and their lawyers) could have possibly not been infallable? What's next? People start questioning the Pope?
On this topic, Jorge Ramos gets removed from Trumps conference on this: Then he comes back in and gets to ask his question when called on (rather nice of Trump, I think - let's see a Democrat or GOP candidate let in someone they've thrown out already to ask questions). Trump is obviously not afraid of dialogue. Right or wrong.
Ramos isn't a reporter, he's a political activist with a press pass. To your point, Trump has no fear of the press, or activists.
I think you might consider that, to argue the Court could reinterpret the 14th Amendment, turning it on its head to rule against birthright citizenship (for instance by redefining the word jurisdiction, already defined in law), isn't any argument that the Court would be likely to do any such thing....especially considering ...
Then I take it you are suggesting a reinterpreting of the 14th won't deal with anything other than babies born in the US, are US citizens, irrespective of their illegal immigrant parents.
Yes, of course, although I would argue with your use of the word reinterpreting. There is no controlling decision on birth citizenship for illegals, although there is a policy in force obviously. The one decision on birth citizenship for offspring of non-citizens dealt with people who were here legally. It's reasoning is certainly open to question. It would hardly be the first Supreme Court decision to be overturned decades later.
Well, as I'm sure you know already, if the Court is asked to adjudicate a matter, they first decide whether they will or not, and then they strictly limit their adjudication to only the specific issue to be decided, they usually issue very narrow rulings. But nevertheless the ruling can have broad implications, sometimes going beyond what the court envisioned. Citizens United would be an example of the latter. I don't think the citizenship clause in the 14th will be adjudicated anytime soon. I doubt Trump Considered the 14th when he began spouting off. He got a little lucky, as the Constitution is on his side. He has apparently realized it now, as I heard him just yesterday refer to constitutional experts. The real political problem for those politicians wanting to round up the anchor babies and send them back to Mexico is, as I mentioned, the majority sentiment in favor of giving these "kids" that came here at a young age illegally, became illegal when their parents' Visas expired, or even were born to parents here illegally, a path to citizenship if they have lived all or practically all of their lives here, have no felony convictions, etc., and have graduated from U.S. schools. Kicking these folks out would be very unpopular. The Dream Act gives the ones who came here as children a path to citizenship. The dream Act is also, in my mind, an acknowledgement of the role played by, and complicity of the U.S. government in allowing these illegals to stay here indefinitely . We need to Pass the Dream Act and perhaps expand it to include anchor babies that have been here long enough to finish college, tighten up the border, do a much better job of tracking illegals, go after employers of illegals, and get on with it. Clocks only go one direction, no one yet has succeeded in turning back the hands of time.
dream act is for people who came here as children, has nothing to do with children born here, they are already citizens
That's right as far as I am aware. However children born to non-citizen parents here illegally are not citizens. The drafter of the 14th made that very clear in his use of "jurisdiction".
ok, good luck re interpreting 14 and deporting and while you're at it why not take a look at 2 and start taking away guns, and if it's not too much trouble, I don't know the one that leagalizes income taxes, but I've never enjoyed paying them