Opt-out
7hr ago
Actually I don’t think it’s clear at all in our system that Courts get to create law when the law is ambiguous. Which is important for birthright because we do not have a definition for Jurisdiction. Courts would still have a legal author to make ruling when the law is clear so they still have a purpose. In the case of birthright I don’t think a Court should be able to rule either way. If the executive does birthright then the court can’t say it’s illegal to do it but they also shouldn’t be able to rule not having birthright is illegal since the statute didn’t define the meaning of jurisdiction. There are no wrong answers to the meaning of jurisdiction.
You don’t need to work to have income. The US doesn’t tax a random German on capital gains. The US does not have this type of Jurisdiction.
That’s all we need to strike down birthright. You just need to show a type of jurisdiction the Feds lack versus the jurisdiction they had on slaves. Any differences give you legal room to end birth right.
More options
Context Copy link