That Ipso/Reuters result that says a majority of respondents said the war was worth it - that seems way out of line with any other recent result I've seen. What's up with that?
I'd like to see how many people think that citizens born in this country to non-citizen parents should lose their citizenship retroactively if they already have exercised any rights of citizenship (voting, obtaining a passport, etc.)
Thanks for the smart breakdown of bias and likely meaning in the different polls. However, as important as it is to find out what people thin on the issue of birthright citizenship, by asking that question, I believe you've missed the bigger, more important picture here. Sure - it's important to know how people view the issue. But the language in the Constitution, which you cite at the top of the article, is crystal-clear: “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.”
I'd like to see you poll the REAL question, which the right has tricked us into sidestepping by focusing on their fake drama. Under the Constitution, that language can only be amended by a Constitutional Amendment, which requires 2/3s of both the House and the Senate to propose, and 3/4s of the state legislatures to approver. But Donald Trump is trying to change the language without a simple executive order. And the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether he can do that. Do you think three people (3 right-wing Justices) should be allowed to amend the Constitution even though the Constitution itself clearly states it requires 3/4 of the States to do so?
My phrasing is not artful, and you may say it loads the question. But really - THIS is the central question. The Supreme Court has been illegally amending the Constitution to reflect views that would never get approved by 3/4s of the states - whether legislatures or conventions. In other words, they can't meet the necessary bar - so they have moved the bar. And the Dems remain - as usual - silent on this fundamental issue. And yes, this would have to cut both ways. In most cases, there may be some colorable argument that "interpretation" is required. But not here. the language at issue is crystal clear. So is Article 5. If the Supreme Court amends birthright citizenship in any way I believe any outrage should be directed first to the process, which will have been knowingly misused for obvious ideological goals,
That Ipso/Reuters result that says a majority of respondents said the war was worth it - that seems way out of line with any other recent result I've seen. What's up with that?
I'd like to see how many people think that citizens born in this country to non-citizen parents should lose their citizenship retroactively if they already have exercised any rights of citizenship (voting, obtaining a passport, etc.)
Thanks for the smart breakdown of bias and likely meaning in the different polls. However, as important as it is to find out what people thin on the issue of birthright citizenship, by asking that question, I believe you've missed the bigger, more important picture here. Sure - it's important to know how people view the issue. But the language in the Constitution, which you cite at the top of the article, is crystal-clear: “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.”
I'd like to see you poll the REAL question, which the right has tricked us into sidestepping by focusing on their fake drama. Under the Constitution, that language can only be amended by a Constitutional Amendment, which requires 2/3s of both the House and the Senate to propose, and 3/4s of the state legislatures to approver. But Donald Trump is trying to change the language without a simple executive order. And the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether he can do that. Do you think three people (3 right-wing Justices) should be allowed to amend the Constitution even though the Constitution itself clearly states it requires 3/4 of the States to do so?
My phrasing is not artful, and you may say it loads the question. But really - THIS is the central question. The Supreme Court has been illegally amending the Constitution to reflect views that would never get approved by 3/4s of the states - whether legislatures or conventions. In other words, they can't meet the necessary bar - so they have moved the bar. And the Dems remain - as usual - silent on this fundamental issue. And yes, this would have to cut both ways. In most cases, there may be some colorable argument that "interpretation" is required. But not here. the language at issue is crystal clear. So is Article 5. If the Supreme Court amends birthright citizenship in any way I believe any outrage should be directed first to the process, which will have been knowingly misused for obvious ideological goals,