If SCOTUS upholds unrestricted birthright citizenship, is it rational to say burn it all down? if they don’t care, then why should I?

[Anonymous]

Like, I support the 2nd amendment, but even I recognize that owning guns shouldn’t be a free for all.

[AMS700CX4u2]

You might try some courses in world government and possibly the works that the were consulted in the organization of our government. If you remember from 12 years of public education and possibly further higher education, Monarchy is a might makes right concept and that has always failed miserably. Aristocracy is created at the Monarchs discretion. The working public has no control over its future. The mid ground is a Republic or a Democracy. The organizers of the Constitution thought that a mixture of Democracy and Republic was worth a try. They were trying to prevent the formation of an ( Let them eat Cake ) aristocracy in the new United States. The 2nd Amendment was construed for the purpose of preventing a government that was deaf to the cries of it's citizens. The right to form militia and to gather. All for the same purpose., not for the purpose of target practice on citizens that you disagree with.

This is not a video game which by the way created an adolescent mentality of shoot everything and you are the winner. Government For the people, By the People. PEOPLE being the operative word. You know I hated all those Social Studies courses. I never thought they would come in handy. Now I can't forget them.

[Asker]

The United States is a constitutional Republic. Our Founders designed a system of limited government under a written Constitution to avoid the failures of monarchy and aristocracy. Faithful interpretation of that document is essential to preserving the Republic they created.
The position on birthright citizenship follows directly from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and controlling Supreme Court precedent. The Amendment declares that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court explained that this language applied to the child of parents who maintained a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who owed direct allegiance to this country. The Court highlighted those facts of permanent domicile as central to its holding.
By contrast, the Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) recognized that birth on United States soil alone does not confer citizenship when full jurisdiction is lacking due to competing allegiance.
This interpretation upholds the constitutional order. Article I grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization. It prevents any branch from rewriting citizenship policy by fiat. Far from promoting aristocracy, it maintains the sovereignty of the American people in their Republic. The Second Amendment stands as a vital protection should government ever ignore the voice of its citizens. True republican government requires that we apply every clause of the Constitution according to its terms and historical meaning.

[AMS700CX4u2]

Thanks for a clear and accurate Statement.

[ProbablyClueless]

@Abbycado said it best; we don't get to choose our laws based on convenience.

That said, I would STRONGLY question the judgment and wisdom of the courts, if they determined that there shouldn't be ANY limits placed on birthright citizenship.

[Abbycado]

You can’t pick and choose what laws are okay for your own convenience.

[abc3643]

There isn't unrestricted birthright citizenship. There are definitely restrictions already.
However, SCOTUS's job is to determine and uphold the intent of the 14th Amendment. If people don't like what they decide, then they ought to formulate a new constitutional amendment which explicitly spells out citizenship.

[exitseven]

i was optimistic about this but maybe not. To me it is a no brainer and there are good arguments against birthright citizenship. It sounded like john Roberts would vote to changr the ruling but maybe not.

[Spencer10]

If you do not like the decision work to get the constitution amended. Protest. Organize. "Burning things down" accomplishes nothing.

[Dargil]

They may have a decision that adds conditions. The founders did not envision what we have now.

[AMS700CX4u2]

Oh, I wonder if Powhatan would agree?

[Dargil]

@AMS700CX4u2 why does that matter?

[AMS700CX4u2]

I wonder if a Native American Chief would agree that flooding hoards of immigrants is a problem?

[Dargil]

@AMS700CX4u2 into its lands? Absolutely. Ditto cuban Americans.

[strateguy632]

Sounds angry not rational.

[Mike_Hum]

I think there's no real recourse any more.

[Asker]

There are 2.

1. Article 5
2. What follows after all men are created equal.

[Mike_Hum]

We live in a culture where half of it lost its mind because the government decided that people who receive taxpayer-funded food assistance shouldn't buy junk food with that taxpayer-funded assistance.