In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
And reading the subsequent interpretations and judgements, it continuously applies the broader language of the 14th as it is intended. SCROTUS is going to have to argue that any and all previous case law related to any of these is wrong, and that’s going to open up a can of worms for any other judgements that resulted. That’s like saying that a law goes into effect that retroactively ignores all other previous laws related, and everything since this particular case is wrong, and they all need to be revisited. Not gonna happen.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
Never heard of this one. Link?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The dissent is the part to look at for what I fear the SCOTUS of today will latch onto.
And reading the subsequent interpretations and judgements, it continuously applies the broader language of the 14th as it is intended. SCROTUS is going to have to argue that any and all previous case law related to any of these is wrong, and that’s going to open up a can of worms for any other judgements that resulted. That’s like saying that a law goes into effect that retroactively ignores all other previous laws related, and everything since this particular case is wrong, and they all need to be revisited. Not gonna happen.
I mean, they discarded decades of settled law over abortion, they certainly have it in them…