From the New York Times live blog of today’s oral argument on the case presenting the issue of whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship on all born in the U.S, as well as an important issue on universal injunctions:
Sauer [the Solicitor General] says the administration would follow a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. But he hedged on whether it would follow federal appeals court rulings within their geographic jurisdiction, saying the government “generally” would do so.
This issue has quite a history at Social Security, although not a recent history because the government had completely given up on it.
5 comments:
A historian uncovered a national law banning citizenship to transient aliens post 14A and there was no controversy whatsoever in that.
Cite?
Gee, can I choose not to follow court orders too? It seem fashionable nowadays.
In other words, Sauer is pointedly telling the Supreme Court (without actually saying the words): "Hold on to your butts - you are about to have a very, very, long next 3 1/2 years."
@12:03 The 1866 civil rights act. The distinction is the 1866 act provides for citizenship via birth so long as the person born is not subject to any foreign power, whereas the 14th amendment is anyone subject to United States' jurisdiction. I imagine at the time nobody argued it was unconstitutional cause the 14th amendment did not exist, it wasn't ratified until 2 years later, and to the extent they did have a problem with it the 14th amendment is broader.
Post a Comment