Prof. Chin's reasoning is rooted in a definition of 'citizen' as stated in the 14th amendment. But this definition does not have an exclusive component; it never says that it's the ONLY definition of who's a citizen.
Likewise, the phrase "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution pre-dates the 14th amendment definition and has no solid legal definition as far as I'm aware. Chin is only arguing whether he meets the 14th amendment definition, which isn't the right discussion.
Prof. Chin's reasoning is rooted in a definition of 'citizen' as stated in the 14th amendment. But this definition does not have an exclusive component; it never says that it's the ONLY definition of who's a citizen.
There's nothing wrong with heading idiots off at the pass. But much like having a bill of rights is dangerous because it might make people think those enumerated are the only rights we enjoy, or that they're granted by the gov't instead of being our natural rights, passing a resolution is dangerous because it leads to this kind of thinking.
If there's a sign saying definitively, "everyone with a red hat is a citizen," it doesn't necessarily mean those with yellow or blue hats aren't.
Besides, the 14th amendment was never intended to be an exclusive definition of citizenship. It was there to ensure freed slaves weren't excluded from citizenship, not to redefine citizenship in totality.
Nor does the 14th amendment even broach the territory of what "natural-born" means. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing defining this rather loose term in a strict legal sense.
Nor does the 14th amendment even broach the territory of what "natural-born" means. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing defining this rather loose term in a strict legal sense.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.