[flagged]
And how did the "legal scholars or judges of merit" interpret the 2nd amendment in 1800?
The same way as today?
The constitution seems to have become a lot more flexible today than people should be comfortable with.
No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...".
Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
I guess that's fine when it comes to the 2nd, but not as fun when your opponents tries the same for the 14th?
The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does. All the original Constitution says is that a "natural-born Citizen" is a requirement for President; and that per Article I, Section 8 congress has the power to define the mechanics of citizenship.
The Fourteenth by contrast says plain text:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So your claim is incorrect.
The person I was responding to was discussing the "wording of the constitution" so the location of the wording absolutely matters. In this case the "wording of the [original] constitution" is ambiguous, but the wording of the 14th is clear. Thus my reply.
> Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
Amendments have the same force as the Constitution because they are a part of the constitution. They are not simply laws. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
1. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/unite...
Thank you again for allowing me to clarify so that you can correct your understanding of the constitution.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Of course, being part of the Constitution, few of the terms are defined. But, as I read it, if you're born here outside of diplomatic immunity, you're a citizen. And I'd need a well referenced argument to understand why 'subject to the jurisdiction therof' means something other than how I interpret it.
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Please, just be honest and say you want to enact a policy and use the US Supreme Court to do it, rather than gaslighting us into believing that words don’t mean what they do.
"No True Scotsman" is not accurate here. This would actually be an appeal to authority.
But the fact that it is one doesn't mean it has no merit. My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, not that they must be wrong because others say they are.
"My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, " And now you've moved onto the Courtier's reply.