No one should be surprised by this. I want way stronger restrictions on immigration, but I also don't think it's a good idea to set a precedent of striking down Constitutional amendments with executive orders. No party stays in power forever, and there are other amendments that are just as consequential, or more so, than the 14th that should not be at the whim of whatever President is in office. The Constitution spells out a clear process for making these kinds of changes and I think we should follow it.
The problem is actually that the court doesn’t stand for anything but itself.
There is no law that says this country has jus soli. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” decision was twisting words and now in the current era the judiciary would never overturn it. I knew this would happen. If someone crosses the border and then has a baby on our soil on a livestream then that kid is an American? Where does it explicitly say that. Besides if a foreign dignitary or diplomat is here then they are still subject to the country they come from? That doesn’t make sense. If an invading army brings women with them and they have kids here does that mean they’re citizens? Where is the congressional ink to confirm this, from the ivory tower SC niggers?
Likewise, the power of the pen means Congress won’t pass limits on themselves or repeal their own laws. To take something away from themselves is bad and to reverse something given to their constituents is bad for their re election. The judiciary won’t overturn their own bad rulings if it affects people and causes harm or goes against precedent either. So the system is not what was written down and the constitutional meaning or text is secondary to the whim of the person wielding the modern lens. This is antithetical to running a country rightly. It is poison.
The problem is that any suitable person who understands that, knows there’s no fix to this:
>congress writes a law that is unconstitutional and repugnant to the original framing, practice, and intention.
>judiciary confirms it with nonsense ruling based on their own previous interpretation to create a new status quo advantageous to the government.
>executive gets blocked when throwing a flag on the play with an EO.
But if you don’t obey their decisions it’s your criminality. There is no legal way to dissent from their criminality. There is no “freedom of association” to dissolve their power over you.
So there can’t be a sovereign leader or a popular revolt, because there is a mercenary congress and an unaccountable judiciary. The executive changes every few years but congress is a chaotic mess of corruption and the judges are like feudal lords without land, but with large bank accounts.
Where is the law that says that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means if you’re born here you’re a citizen? There is none. They had to make up a story about English common law and a case that was ruled in 1898. There’s no citation they can make from a legislator that says that was the intention or meaning.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” is the entire argument over the interpretation of the law right?
And “the right to bear arms” is interpreted as the NFA being legal, and so on. The fourth amendment says you won’t be subject to search and seizure but that’s interpreted as flock cameras and FISA courts being fine under anti terrorism laws. None of that is what the founders intended and that is plainly obvious based on literally everything they did.
So there is no constitution really, because the judiciary only cares about its own historical opinions and how judges can personally rewrite meaning of laws. What there is are people who decide what that means because they have the titles which is what the next popular revolt will be about, but since no one has an alternative to this system and no one will allow it, the rape of all “our posterity” will continue.
Congress might as well be a corporate position with mercenary actors doing what they’re told in groups. After all where in the constitution does it say that congress can make subdivisions of itself, and hire out its work to subordinate undemocratic organizations?
Besides, they already threw it out during the civil war when they decided the country could not be seceded from. So there really is two “Americas”. one that’s in the minds of Americans, and one that exists as a power structure, and the power structure made sure the die was cast. None of these modern concepts make any sense to someone in 1776 or in the 1800s, but the original framing of something doesn’t matter, again what matters is entropy and the personal game of power exercising.
Unfortunately technology prevents a Napoleon in this era because what the people in government have done in “the west” is they have decided that it’s a free for all as long as you don’t destroy people’s personal job security.
