justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/31/18 at 14:13:25:Which demonstrates that the supreme court has been Wrong.
A kid passing eighth grade English knows better.
if it had just been one time, sure, but it has been tested over time, and from even BEFORE the 14th amendment was passed
Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/414032-supreme-court-set-clear-preced...and you're right the supreme court can be wrong, and has, many times, this however, isn't one of them.
from the Wiki:
"Original meaning
During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[58] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[59][60] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[61][62][63]"