So, yet again, John Hinderaker would tell us that “the interpretation” of the plain English of the Fourteenth Amendment… is a disaster, of monumental proportions.
He apparently thinks we cannot read the language. This is no “interpretation” — this is what the black letters say, in English: “born here; citizen here.”
Likewise, John well-knows that the only legitimate path to changing that… is a Constitutional amendment. And he also well knows such a thing could never garner the 2/3rds majorities needed, to even begin that process.
So he hopes for a judicial coup d’etat. One that will never come. [And of course, without violating that clause, the GOP is increasingly unlikely to win very many more national elections. So he… proposes… cheating. Y A W N.]
This is John — demand that everyone (excepting him!) play by the rules, established some 150 years ago.
Hinderaker? He will just keep up his vainly unavailing, nigh impotent “forum shopping“, for crooked judges.
What a pig.
Out.
Powerline Lies... 
This is an egregiously disingenuous statement from Hinderaker:
The language is crystal-clear. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means what it means. If you can be arrested, tried, and sentenced for a crime, you’re subject to the jurisdiction. Full stop. Surely John knows this, yes? I mean, they still teach this stuff in law school, right?
The history is also crystal-clear. This isn’t some ancient scroll with no Roseta Stone to guide us. Ohio Rep. John A. Bingham, the primary author of Section 1 of the 14th, wrote and spoke at length about the intended purpose of the 14th. Historically, there’s no ambiguity—none—about the Amendment’s intent. And to say that the practice followed in this country in the 128 years since United States v. Wong Kim Ark isn’t a part of the 14th Amendment’s “history” is simply… moronic.
LikeLike
Yep — exactly!
LikeLiked by 1 person