Doctor: Hello, I'm your new doctor! I'm here to ensure that you die, die, die a horrible, possibly lingering, DEATH!! I expect my fee to be paid in gold bullion... or perhaps chickens!! Patient: Can I get a second opinion?
church, so your view is that the SC should balance between “original intent” – obviously a point with a lot of debate all by itself if this list is any evidence – and the literal meaning? Interesting perspective, but you’re leaving out the body of settled law and precedent which can be used to guide that decision, especially if there is uncertainty (the gray areas you note) in the wording of the law. In other words, if the 14th Amendment has been used enough times to justify anchor babies, then it becomes, for all intents and purposes, law unless a clearer law is drafted and passed, as you suggest. I’m not a lawyer (dodged that bullet), but it’s a well-established principle. Note that the UK has no constitution but instead relies on established precedents for its civil rights – and Brits object vociferously if you claim they need a Bill of Rights.
So the Supremes need more on their office shelves than the Constitution and the Federalist Papers!
Anyway, I agree that the law is pretty doggoned clear in this case, so we need a different approach to solve the problem. On one of the other toons there is a lengthy discussion of this based on bcs’ experiences in a section of California with a ludicrous number of illegals which you may not have read but which was kind of interesting. Not a lot of answers, but a lot of questions.
Stuart Carlson and Jerry Resler
April 12, 2017
May 28, 2018