A recognized Constitutional expert has finally come forward and given a scholarly examination of the current 14th Amendment controversy and debate. He goes into great detail about all the issues addressed in this thread. Unfortunately, he does not support the Trump contentions and those of the Trump supporters on this thread. Rather he confirms what the Trump critics have contended over these many pages. Trump and his ideas don't have a leg to stand on according to this guy.
Of course the claim will be made immediately that the source is not reliable and biased toward a liberal or Democrat spin. The messenger will be attacked. One problem, and it is a kind of a big one for anyone that tries to go that "attack the messenger route".
James Ho writes for the Federalist and was an attorney in the G.W. Bush administration. He was one of the authors of the famous memos that changed the way prisoners where treated. His contribution was the memo that determined that terrorist prisoners did not have to be treated in accordance with international treaties.
Hard core Republican conservative says this:
thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/
Let the attacks on Ho begin.
Great article- I particularly like this quote:
[speaking of Wong Kim decision]
By a 6–2 vote, the Court rejected the government’s argument:
“The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. … To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”[37]
This sweeping language reaches all aliens regardless of immigration status.[38] To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
