14th Ammendment
- Thread starter wvu2007
- Start date
Does not require being a Constitutional scholar. Only requires one being able to read and understand/interpret straight forward English.
You know there has been talk about getting it to the SC when there were enough originalist on the SC. I think it's time but both Gorsuch and Roberts are not strict conservatives.
I think strict originalists disagree with your premise in the first place. Don't act like this is a liberal/conservative issues. This is a power issue.
"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."
Funny how the Constitution is a friend of the right until it isn't.......you scream 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own AR-15's but the 14th Amendment is some sort of mistake. Typical hypocrite.
He could pass an EO but Congress would have to change the law so that's why he's making it an issue because we vote for Congress next week dumbass.
He's trying to win a majority for Congress. He's also trying to make sure I didn't lose my $500 bet with your stupid ***.
Funny how the Constitution is a friend to people who love Freedom and limited government but to Socialists they see it as an annoying piece of worthless paper.
The EO would be nothing. Is the GOP running on his EO guidelines? I'm betting most are going to keep pretty quiet.
THe amendment was to make the slave's children born in this country citizens. I said it will make for an interesting argument. You need to have a better understanding of the wording. Why is it so hard for you to read what I typed. I said that Roberts and gorsuch might side with the liberals anyway. Gosh, you are one dumb sumbitch.
You wouldn't know what a strict originalist believes and neither do I. I said, it will be interesting argument before the SC. I also said that both Roberts and Gorsuch might side with the liberals since they have already. LOL.
The constitution is the friend of law abiding citizens. It is a contract between it's citizens and it's government. It is not a living breathing entity.
Socialists hate it because it places limits on government and the individual above the
State. They'd tear it up tomorrow if they had the chance. What part of it do they respect?
I do from reading a few.
Trump appointed Hon Judge Ho:
To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey.
Common usage confirms this understanding. When we speak of a business that is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency, it must follow the laws of that agency, whether it likes it or not. When we speak of an individual who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court, he must follow the judgments and orders of that court, whether he likes it or not. As Justice Scalia noted just a year ago, when a statute renders a particular class of persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress “has made clear its intent to extend its laws” to them.
More:
[T]he text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something — and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers — as agents of a foreign sovereign — are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory.
Foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity, while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant immunity. Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This conclusion is confirmed by history. The Citizenship Clause was no legal innovation. It simply restored the longstanding English common law doctrine of jus soli, or citizenship by place of birth. Although the doctrine was initially embraced in early American jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated jus soli in its infamous Dred Scott decision, denying birthright citizenship to the descendents of slaves. Congress approved the Citizenship Clause to overrule Dred Scott and elevate jus soli to the status of constitutional law.
I think Republicans see this as a winning issue and I don't see any of them running away from it. Trump certainly isn't.
The amendment was added to protect slaves, people brought here against their will, children, not children of people here illegally. It will be interesting if it were to get to this SC. Are people that are here illegally subject to this law?
Yep, we saw what happened to all of Obama's EO, they can be repealed immediately.
To me the better question is are folks who violate our immigration laws entitled to protection under them?
That's the best argument against anchor babies I've read yet. What's this 14th amendment talk about?
He was asked about it today and reiterated that if he chose to issue that executive order it would not be in violation of any Constitutional provision or represent any change in existing immigration law.
The 14th Amendment as it was written does not apply to illegal aliens. It was written for Slaves to make sure they were afforded full citizenship after we organized as a representative republic with equal rights for all. Congress has Authority in determining what the exact immigration laws look like but as executive, Trump has the right to enforce a ban on illegal ailiens automatically having their children become legal citizens which is not statutory law!
I'm actually wrapping up football practice tonight but later I plan to link to some interpretations of this I heard earlier this evening which should straighten this out.
Last edited:
Here is a pretty good explanation of the 14th Amendment as it applies to birthright citizenship.
From Nationally syndicated Mark Levin Radio Show 10.20.15
full transcript and audio
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michae...ldren-born-illegals-have-constitutional-right
(excepted in parts below)
Nobody did a better job at explaining this than Professor Edward Erler, who I’ve talked about over the years. And he’s a professor at California State University. He is also at The Claremont Institute, a senior fellow there. But more than that, he happens to be right. And he testified before a subcommittee of Congress many years ago, almost 20 years ago. And he set forth the case.
“Now, he’s not the only one: Professor Thomas West has; Lino Graglia has, professor at University of Texas School of Law School. But even more than them, the framers of the Constitution set forth the basic law. And then we have, after the Civil War, three amendments to the Constitution – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – called the Civil War Amendments. And we know pretty much what occurred.
“Professor Erler was testifying. He said, ‘It’s my considered opinion, Congress has the authority, under Section Five of the Fourth Amendment, to define the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course]. Indeed, it is my contention that Congress has exercised that power on many occasions, most recently in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I would say they also exercised it with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.”
“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?
“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’
“So, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count foreigners, aliens and those born to ambassadors, foreign ministers, as outside the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s Senator Jacob Howard. He knew, as his reference to natural law indicates that the republican basis for citizenship is consent – consent of the country.
“You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.
“Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those ‘not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.’
“The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as ‘all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.’ ‘Not subject to any foreign power.’
“It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize (constitutionalize) the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matter of federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus, it was clear, the idea of allegiance, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ was central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
From Nationally syndicated Mark Levin Radio Show 10.20.15
full transcript and audio
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michae...ldren-born-illegals-have-constitutional-right
(excepted in parts below)
Nobody did a better job at explaining this than Professor Edward Erler, who I’ve talked about over the years. And he’s a professor at California State University. He is also at The Claremont Institute, a senior fellow there. But more than that, he happens to be right. And he testified before a subcommittee of Congress many years ago, almost 20 years ago. And he set forth the case.
“Now, he’s not the only one: Professor Thomas West has; Lino Graglia has, professor at University of Texas School of Law School. But even more than them, the framers of the Constitution set forth the basic law. And then we have, after the Civil War, three amendments to the Constitution – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – called the Civil War Amendments. And we know pretty much what occurred.
“Professor Erler was testifying. He said, ‘It’s my considered opinion, Congress has the authority, under Section Five of the Fourth Amendment, to define the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course]. Indeed, it is my contention that Congress has exercised that power on many occasions, most recently in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I would say they also exercised it with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.”
“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?
“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’
“So, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count foreigners, aliens and those born to ambassadors, foreign ministers, as outside the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s Senator Jacob Howard. He knew, as his reference to natural law indicates that the republican basis for citizenship is consent – consent of the country.
“You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.
“Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those ‘not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.’
“The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as ‘all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.’ ‘Not subject to any foreign power.’
“It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize (constitutionalize) the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matter of federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus, it was clear, the idea of allegiance, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ was central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Last edited:
One more excellent analysis
Nothing...not even birthright citizenship trumps consent of the nation.
https://www.conservativereview.com/...ght-citizenship-trumps-consent-of-the-nation/
excerpt:
One thing that all sides of the so-called birthright citizenship debate forget is that nothing ever supersedes the consent of a nation. Even if one believes that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was rightly decided (here’s why it wasn’t), thereby creating a definitive floor for citizenship within the Constitution, outside Congress’ regulatory power, for kids born to all immigrants, there is no way that can apply to people who come here without the consent of the nation.
...more
The Fourteenth Amendment stipulates two requirements for birthright citizenship: that the individual be born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Let’s put aside the debate over what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Nobody can unilaterally assert jurisdiction against the will of the nation. But even if the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t contain the second condition and only stipulated that the child must be “born in the United States,” it is beyond settled law that if you are here without consent, it is quite literally as if you are not present in this country
Nothing...not even birthright citizenship trumps consent of the nation.
https://www.conservativereview.com/...ght-citizenship-trumps-consent-of-the-nation/
excerpt:
One thing that all sides of the so-called birthright citizenship debate forget is that nothing ever supersedes the consent of a nation. Even if one believes that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was rightly decided (here’s why it wasn’t), thereby creating a definitive floor for citizenship within the Constitution, outside Congress’ regulatory power, for kids born to all immigrants, there is no way that can apply to people who come here without the consent of the nation.
...more
The Fourteenth Amendment stipulates two requirements for birthright citizenship: that the individual be born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Let’s put aside the debate over what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Nobody can unilaterally assert jurisdiction against the will of the nation. But even if the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t contain the second condition and only stipulated that the child must be “born in the United States,” it is beyond settled law that if you are here without consent, it is quite literally as if you are not present in this country
Last edited:
100% WRONG! The 14th amendment has zero to do with illegal immigrants. Birthright citizenship is NOT afforded to those who are here illegally!
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michae...ldren-born-illegals-have-constitutional-right
This might be your most stupid post ever......EVER and that says a lot. On one hand you want to protect a fetus.....on the other hand a fetus born in US and guaranteed US Citizenship by the 14th amendment should be thrown out. You are a pathetic hypocrite. A complete fraud as a Christian.
I'd rather be right than make up sh*t. At least I can define a Socialist in my own words, you can't even admit that you are one.
Lol, these freaking rubes probably believe they would have been ok with Obama changing the Constitution with an executive order even if that was remotely possible, they can't even remember what they used to ***** and moan about let alone identify racist pandering!
NO!
It is a preserve America (USA) issue. Long,long, long overdue.
Never, never intended to allow visitors, invaders, ones just passing through to be included--NEVER.
Was passed to deal with hang over from the freeing of slaves and some States finding loopholes so as to deny them true citizenship. PERIOD. Read more than just the abbreviated PLAIN words in the constitution to get a better/fuller flair for the debates on the topic. See what those involved had to say when this amendment was being considered. Learn what those involved, even the one who drafted the amendment, had to say about restrictions on who would be included/excluded. No ambiguity among those drafting and then the State legislatures who ratified it as an amendment. NO questions regarding it until the 1960's when Ted Kennedy decided to add his spin.