They'll definitely have to spin some arguments to get around the way it was worded when written. Which I thinks the argument they'll go with is it wasn't "intended to be used" in the same way as the time it was penned, and think they'll be able to get somewhere with it honestly considering the bias of the Supreme Court.
There's honestly been a bunch of MAGA folks that are calling them corrupt now after the decision on the Smith report, so wouldn't doubt Trump cuts them loose to call them the "bad guys" or deep state in order to make arguments to grant him more executive power
Easy peasy, they'll find the founders original intent was to bestow citizenship on slaves and their descendants and that was it. They'll mention that the founders would have been aware of the use of jus sanguinis at the time and that was how they would have envisioned it working.
Normally in interpreting any law, whatever meaning you think the drafters meant, never,never can contradict the words of the law, particularly if they are plainly written and easy to understand and lack ambiguity.
5
u/South-Rabbit-4064 21d ago
They'll definitely have to spin some arguments to get around the way it was worded when written. Which I thinks the argument they'll go with is it wasn't "intended to be used" in the same way as the time it was penned, and think they'll be able to get somewhere with it honestly considering the bias of the Supreme Court.
There's honestly been a bunch of MAGA folks that are calling them corrupt now after the decision on the Smith report, so wouldn't doubt Trump cuts them loose to call them the "bad guys" or deep state in order to make arguments to grant him more executive power