I would say that the Roberts interpretation of jurisdiction does not make any sense in the light of:
1. USA claims jurisdiction over the Venezuela head of state.
2. the Consitution uses "within the Jurisdiction" and "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean different things.
Also, no one ever determined that the 14A entitles the kids of sojourners and illegals to be citizens. We had opinions saying that domicile was required, but lazy bureaucrats accepted birth certificates as proof of citizenship.
Even if comments of Reconstruction Senators imply a broad citizenship rule, we now have millions of kids of sojourners and illegals. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It is crazy to say that a 1868 sentence cannot have any common sense exceptions. This decision cripples USA sovereignty.
If this decision stands, the President may be forced to deny all visas to women of child-bearing age in order to control sovereignty. Then the Roberts decision will be considered terrible.
No comments:
Post a Comment