another fight shaping up in Arizona

You're correct about the context of the original law but the rationale behind it was that the former slaves could not be considered illegal because they were here against there own will and were in fact citizens. It was specifically intended to counter the prior Dred Scott vs. Sanford ruling of the Supreme Court.

The modern interpretation of the law came about from changes in how the Supreme Court viewed the Constitution - not the Constitution itself - and resulted in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling. This ruling was not the intention of the original amendment but, by our general acceptance of judicial legislation, we have endorsed it as law. Our Congress is too weak to take on the Supreme Court.

Regardless, we need to fix the problem. I think the birthright citizenship is one problem and the legislative encroachment of the Supreme Court is another. This thread is, of course, about the former of these two so, to that extent, I'm all for "changing" the law even though I really don't believe it needs to be changed because it's original intent wasn't birthright citizenship for children of illegal residents.

Hat's off - again - to Arizona for doing something about the problem and not caving to some of press against them. They're doing what's right - not what's politically safe.

 

Again, there is partial agreement. I believe the wording in the Constitution is poor and should be changed. Yet, Constitutionally the Supreme Court has that to work with. I do find it difficult from the wording to differentiate one group and not the other. The wording could include both.

 

I certainly can agree about the Constitutional wording. I don't think the authors of this amendment ever anticipated it would be twisted into something they didn't intend to write. It's not unlike the problem we sometimes can create with Biblical wording. The context, venue, circumstances, etc. have a lot to do with what something meant especially its scope. But people can take words - especially translated words - and extend, contract, or redirect them to a totally different meaning. The Supreme Court has gotten real good at doing that to us with our Constitution!

When we make the amendment to clarify this illegal immigration issue we ought to also clarify that the Supreme Court has no authority to alter our Constitution on their word alone.

 

As we can see from the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court has been wrong before. I know that is practically blasphemy to some, but it is the truth. They may be very smart individuals, but sometimes they take very idiotic stances.

 

The Dred Scott decision correctly applied the words written in the Constitution. The applicable words and sentences are clear English.

 

Then the ILLEGAL parents should be deported.