• spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Several hundred years of legal precedent disagree with you. Please tell me, since you know better: what was its “true” purpose?

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          So weird they forgot to add in a “born in the United States before 1865” clause if that’s what they meant. What a bunch of dummies!

        • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It can’t possibly have had more than one purpose? Especially given the broad language used that explicitly covered all people born here?

          This is a truly extraordinary insight. Who knows how many judges have been ruling incorrectly, and here you come clarifying it for us all! Truly, you are a gift to us all.

          • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah that broad language didn’t cover native Americans…

            I’m not saying it’s irrelevant like they’re arguing but it’s not as fundamental as your arguing either…

            America has broadly worded laws like this not because we’re progressive but because our founders were so fundamentally racist that they literally didn’t think about brown people or women as people and so these laws would never apply to them…

            https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/

            • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The fact that it’s been enforced selectively doesn’t invalidate it. It just means there’s room (and reason!) to improve.

              • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not arguing that just saying that the selective enforcement kind of proves it’s not as fundamental as you’re arguing it is…

                • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Freedom of speech is also a fundamental principle of our nation, but it’s also selectively enforced. I don’t think your argument refutes mine as well as you think.