Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Steelfish
This is a challenge for those already recognized as citizens by the government. You can't just strip citizenship, even if the law changes or there is a clarification of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, those already recognized a citizens would be grandfathered in. You can't make a change in the law retroactive (ex post facto law). (Article 1, Section 9 ss 3)
6 posted on 04/28/2010 1:49:12 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mnehring

“You can’t just strip citizenship, even if the law changes or there is a clarification of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, those already recognized a citizens would be grandfathered in. You can’t make a change in the law retroactive (ex post facto law). (Article 1, Section 9 ss 3)”

It wouldn’t be “ex post facto” if a court were to rule that the law had been interpreted incorrectly at the time the children were determined to have been citizens. We would most likely still “grandfather” them in, but that would be for convenience’s sake, not by necessity.


10 posted on 04/28/2010 1:52:17 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring; Tublecane; Little Ray

This is quite an informative piece- worth a read.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/a-proper-understanding-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/


19 posted on 04/28/2010 1:55:02 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

The 14th Amendment contains the words “subject to the jurisdiction therein” specifically to exclude those who not subject to US laws, i.e., illegal aliens. If you are an illegal alien or a diplomat, you are not subject to the rights bestowed citizens under the Constitution. There is nothing confusing about it.

If the founders meant that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen, they would not have added those very specific words to the amendment.


28 posted on 04/28/2010 1:58:51 PM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (1-20-09--The Beginning of an Error..............1-20-13--Change we can look forward to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Correct. That would violate due process. Prof. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University argues thus:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/From-Feudalism-to-Consent-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship


35 posted on 04/28/2010 2:08:30 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson