"But that really is the definition of judicial activism. Roberts is an activist court though, so you very well may get to see your wish."
Whoa. Hold your horses. I not sure where I stand on this issue. I don't like the concepts of anchor babies, but I still have my doubts about exporting children born in this country. I am just looking at both sides of the issues and trying to show that it is not as cut and dried as your initial post claimed it to be. I know it was an attempt to bash a Republican so it was hard to resist. "So you are keen to just toss out 112 years of precedent?" Not me. It would be legislatures and/or courts. If the 112 years of precedent are wrong, that is, go against the intention of the amendment, then I have no problem with it By the way, I have found many state laws from the 1850's that explicitly state that children of aliens are not citizens. Here an example: All persons born in this state, and resident within it, *except the children of transient aliens*, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc" Some state adopted these laws AFTER the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Maybe the Fourteenth Amendment should be repealed and a new amendment created that explicitly deals with this problem. "All Native Americans were declared US citizens subsequent to that. Somewhere in the 20's? Dawes Act? Don't make me look it up, but it's so." Yes. It was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (Snyder Act). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317050 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
