Granted, I'm far from up to speed on US constitutional arguments, as they're not particularly relevant to me, but I'm failing to see how this has anything to do with constitutional interpretation.
I'm assuming, from my uninformed position, that all interpretations of the US constitution ground themselves within the constitution itself, regardless of how they choose to read and implement said document. Thus, for example, one can argue on how extensive the right to keep and bear arms is, but cannot argue on whether or not said right should be granted. A blanket ban on all firearms is unconstitutional no matter how you choose to interpret the second amendment because of the specific phrasing ("...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.")
That said, I'm not sure I see how anyone can say this proposed bill is constitutional under any argument. The very first line of the fourteenth amendment, according to both Wikipedia and the above cited article, reads:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fourteenth Amendment, US 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.
|
(Emphasis mine, of course.)
To be quite blunt, that's pretty damn explicit. There's no provision regarding the nationality or status of the parents, and there's not really any room to argue about it. "All persons" does not allow for exceptions. In that context, I don't see how this law could be considered constitutional under any interpretation, unless the legislators behind it are prepared to argue that the individuals in question are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which needless to say would be even more bizarre.
Can anyone clarify this?