To the editor:

Re: Real story behind 14th Amendment Feb. 11

He is referencing “rulings” on specific cases that resolve that case “specifically.” It has no, repeat, no lawful enforceable extension of authority beyond that specific case, although it can be “referenced” in another case to perhaps influence an opinion in a future court case.

In other words, an “opinion” by a judge or a decision by a court does not automatically become law. It took fifty years to discover that little tidbit with Roe V Wade. Advocates for “abortion” claimed it was “the law of the land” for all those years.

That is what Ardis Truwe’s and his fellow advocates argument is when it comes to the “anchor baby” issue. A few courts or judges opinions or court decisions are not to be interpreted to be “the law of the land” as the abortion issue was so abusively used. “Subject to the jurisdiction of” is not nor should not be so difficult to understand. A baby born on United States soil to a citizen of a foreign nation continues to be a citizen of the nation of the parent. It’s common sense which seems to be quite foreign to those of Ardis Truwe’s mind set.

Roger Baumann

Wabasso