Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswami wants to eliminate birth right citizenship
"pro-lifers" want to define fetuses as citizens,
Do these kinds of changes need a constitutional amendment?
Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswami wants to eliminate birth right >citizenship
"pro-lifers" want to define fetuses as citizens,
Do these kinds of changes need a constitutional amendment?
Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswami wants to eliminate birth right citizenship
"pro-lifers" want to define fetuses as citizens,
Do these kinds of changes need a constitutional amendment?
Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswami wants to eliminate birth right citizenship
"pro-lifers" want to define fetuses as citizens,
Do these kinds of changes need a constitutional amendment?
According to S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>:
Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswami wants to eliminate birth right >>citizenship
"pro-lifers" want to define fetuses as citizens,
Do these kinds of changes need a constitutional amendment?
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside.
So, yes. Despite what some right wing blather claims, the "subject to
the jurisdiction" bit is a narrow exception for children of foreign
diplomats and Indian tribes that had not yet accepted US citizenship.
It's hard to know what to say about fetal personhood since the whole
idea is so bizarre. About half the time a fertilized egg doesn't
implant and just becomes part of a woman's monthly period. Was that a
person? How could anyone tell?
There would have to be some additional rules in the legislation, such as >verification of the fetus through a blood test, etc. There would also be >some presumably unintended consequences such as the loss of tax revenue for >the government due to a pregnant couple receiving an extra tax deduction and >child tax credit if pregnant on December 31st. And if fetuses now count as >people, does that mean we change the way we calculate ages, starting at >conception rather than birth? That has all kind of implications for how we >calculate milestones for child care, various age milestones such as dates to >start school, attain legal adulthood, census reporting, etc. Of course,
it would also settle the ongoing debate in some states over whether a >pregnant woman can include her fetus in calculating whether she can ride car >pool lanes.
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
There would have to be some additional rules in the legislation,
such as verification of the fetus through a blood test, etc.
There would also be some presumably unintended consequences such
as the loss of tax revenue for the government due to a pregnant
couple receiving an extra tax deduction and child tax credit if
pregnant on December 31st. And if fetuses now count as people,
does that mean we change the way we calculate ages, starting at
conception rather than birth? That has all kind of implications
for how we calculate milestones for child care, various age
milestones such as dates to start school, attain legal adulthood,
census reporting, etc. Of course, it would also settle the
ongoing debate in some states over whether a pregnant woman can
include her fetus in calculating whether she can ride car pool
lanes.
The purpose of the carpool lane is to get people to ride together,
so they won't each drive their own car. To cut down on the
general traffic level.
AIUI, fetuses always ride with their mother and never drive their
own car. So even if they can split inheritancese, I don't think
they should count for HOV car pool lane purposes.
Do they even count children too young to drive in calculating how
many people are in the car? If so, maybe it's because from a
distance, all they see is a number of heads and they can't tell
how old they are.
So here again, if the fetus can't hold his head up above the
height of the car seat back, he shouldn't be counted.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:06:49 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
There would have to be some additional rules in the legislation, such as >>verification of the fetus through a blood test, etc. There would also be >>some presumably unintended consequences such as the loss of tax revenue
for
the government due to a pregnant couple receiving an extra tax deduction >>and
child tax credit if pregnant on December 31st. And if fetuses now count
as
people, does that mean we change the way we calculate ages, starting at >>conception rather than birth? That has all kind of implications for how
we
calculate milestones for child care, various age milestones such as dates >>to
start school, attain legal adulthood, census reporting, etc. Of course, >>it would also settle the ongoing debate in some states over whether a >>pregnant woman can include her fetus in calculating whether she can ride >>car
pool lanes.
The purpose of the carpool lane is to get people to ride together, so
they won't each drive their own car. To cut down on the general
traffic level.
AIUI, fetuses always ride with their mother and never drive their own
car. So even if they can split inheritancese, I don't think they should >count for HOV car pool lane purposes.
Do they even count children too young to drive in calculating how many
people are in the car? If so, maybe it's because from a distance, all
they see is a number of heads and they can't tell how old they are.
So here again, if the fetus can't hold his head up above the height of
the car seat back, he shouldn't be counted.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 248 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 65:08:29 |
| Calls: | 5,500 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,667 |
| Messages: | 5,065,872 |