Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls
I do not think you want to seriously go down that road of arguing "what was meant" by the Amendment. If you do, then you would have to accept that the 2nd Amendment "was meant" only to cover muskets and other similar revolution era weapon technology...not semi-automatic rifles. And the 1st Amendment "was meant" to cover political speech...not pornography.
|
Not sure how you can make that analogy in any way, shape, or form.
The 2nd amendment says "bear arms" and was set up so the govt. couldn't disarm the citizenry.
The 14th amendment was set up decades later to ensure that former slaves were now considered full citizens.
Your analogy is just not there.
For instance...right now, if an ambassador from another country is living in New York (where the UN is at) and his wife has a baby in New York...that baby is NOT a U.S. citizen by law. Even though it was born on U.S. soil.
Google that one up and you'll see it plain as day.
But yet somehow a person entering the country who isn't a diplomat can have a baby and it's automatically a citizen?
So how come the 14th amendment doesn't cover that child of the diplomat, and didn't cover Native Americans...but is good for everyone else?
That's the gray area that Trump is saying could be challenged in court.
And he's right...there is a good argument for that.
Hey, if you had told me that Pres. Obama would have won the ObamaCare argument in the Supreme Court I would have said "No way".
But since I'm no legal expert, I had no idea that the Court would simply declare it as a "Tax" and say yes it's legal.
So before you offhandedly dismiss that the 14th amendment can be challenged in the case of "anchor babies", you should keep that in mind.