@LaVeriteVeritas@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki The literal argument was that Wong wasn't a citizen because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China. The Court ruled that because he was physically born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws, he was a natural-born U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. 4/4
@LaVeriteVeritas@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki The Court answered the specific question before it. It did not issue a ruling to exclude everyone else.
She left out 1898's Wong Kim Ark. The U.S. government tried to that the 14th Amendment was only for freedmen and their descendants. 3/?
@eigenrobot@curiousgangsta @spacepunk Chaplains exist specifically to navigate moral injury and spiritual crises in combat zones. Shielding them or the soldiers they counsel from the moral realities of the conflict defeats their fundamental purpose.
@eigenrobot@curiousgangsta @spacepunk Catholic doctrine states participating in an unjust war is a grave evil. Bishop's primary mandate is safeguarding the souls of his flock. If the war is unjust, remaining silent simply to avoid making chaplains "uncomfortable" is a dereliction of his core religious duty.
@aelfred_D@OrigenOfSpices Cardinal Cushing presided over the 1961 Good Friday service: https://t.co/r3FeP4BAx7
Here is the schedule for the Pentagon Triduum in 1963: https://t.co/KCTeF9bDD4
@aelfred_D@OrigenOfSpices Cardinal Cushing presided over the 1961 Good Friday service: https://t.co/r3FeP4BAx7
Here is the schedule for the Pentagon Triduum in 1963: https://t.co/KCTeF9bDD4
@LaVeriteVeritas@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki Does Coulter's "Civil War only" theory explain why the Supreme Court gave citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, the son of Chinese subjects, in 1898? Or does she just ignore the cases that prove her wrong?
@togton1@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki I assume he just wasn't convinced and didn't see the need to respond. What I said is nothing that hasn't been argued already.
@LaVeriteVeritas@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki The only people not subject to this jurisdiction in 1868 were foreign diplomats (who possess diplomatic immunity), soldiers of a hostile occupying army, and members of Native American tribes (who were governed by treaties as sovereign nations). 2/2
@LaVeriteVeritas@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki Territorial authority. If a person is physically present on US soil, they are required to obey US laws. Because the US can enforce its civil and criminal laws on them, they are "subject to its jurisdiction." They owe the US "temporary allegiance" while within its borders. 1/2
@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki By inserting the word "residents" into the requirement for natl citizenship, you are applying modern immigration concepts (like Legal Permanent Resident vs. temporary visa holder or undocumented immigrant) to a constitutional amendment that deliberately did not
@ZacMabry@JamesSurowiecki The amend establishes 2 different types of citizenship, with 2 different requirements:
1) Natl: Requires being born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with being a resident.
2) State: Requires being a natl citizen and residing in a specific state.