Talk:Fourteenth Amendment

Due process

This article links to a page Due process (which exists) and separately Procedural due process. Before I pull the link, i wanted to verify they are the same thing. Thanks.--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 20:46, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I have no idea as to the facts of the matter, but it sounds fair to me. To zap the link, that is. ħuman 22:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Roe did not have an abortion.

She gave the child up for adoption. The line "since the fetus was not alive at the time of Roe's abortion" is therefore innaccurate.

This is correct. Were you waiting for someone else to fix this and note that the court's justiciability analysis was based on "capable of repetition, yet evading review" since she was never charged under the Texas criminal prohibition on abortion and her injunction petition was moot when she had the child? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Especially considering she has joined the anti-abortion crew of late. ħuman 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Section "Efforts to repeal birthright citizenship."

This section is poorly written and researched.

I removed the last sentence of this section, which makes absolutely no sense.

"Conservatives generally oppose a welfare state, so they should be aware of the effects of modifying the Citizenship Clause: the Dominican Republic amended its constitution to require children born in the country to have citizen parents in order to be citizens and used that law to revoke retroactively the citizenship of many descendants of Haitian immigrants (some of them multigenerational)."

Why would conservatives need to be cautious about modifying the Citizenship clause if they are opposed to the welfare state? There is no connection -- certainly none that this article asserts. Is the concern that revoking jus sanguinis citizenship would increase the welfare state by increasing the number of persons in immigration detention centers? If so, put it in the article. I didn't because I think it's a stupid argument, to be blunt. A constitutional amendment in the United States could not revoke the citizenship of persons who are already US citizens. No one who wants such an amendment speaks as if they want to revoke people's citizenships, but rather prevent future persons from being granted citizenship on these grounds.

The reference to Haitian-Dominicans is absolutely not evidence to the contrary; the Dominican Republic uses an entirely different legal system than the U.S. The outcome of the Dominican Republic's constitutional amendment was possible because they use a civil law system rather than a common law system. There is an extensive body of precedent in American common law that would bar the government from revoking the citizenship of persons who are already citizenships. In the Dominican Republic, there was no such precedent, because there is no precedent in a civil law system. Moreover, the fact that the Constitutional Amendment was used to revoke Haitian-Dominicans citizenship was not caused by some logical extension of the text of the amendment, but actual racial animus on the part of the Dominican government which preceded the amendment, and was why it was proposed in the first place. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare state whatsoever. 156.34.239.112 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)