Posted on 10/31/2018 7:47:55 AM PDT by Borges
IIRC, I believe the reason they were prohibited from becoming Citizens was that our treaty with China didn’t allow it.
State Department regulations interpreted both the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, now codified in U.S. Code 8, Section 1401. I think that you are right, this came in the back door while no one was paying attention, it is now incorporated into U.S. law and while the President can issue an Executive Order ordering the Executive Branch to enforce only the original text of the 14th Amendment, this would be challenged in court. It will serve to force action on the issue. I suspect that this is the real intent of the President's announcement.
It will be challenged for sure and President Trump fully expected that.
You are correct, this was to force a court fight.
I’d feel a lot better if we had one more justice.
I do not trust Roberts at all.
You’re counting your Roberts before he chickens.........
Actually that part was true and did you know that California continued to ban Asian/white marriages until the Perez v. Sharp decision in 1948. My grandfather’s description on his navy discharge papers(1917) instead of eye color and hair and such simply read Chinaman. So needing someone white to verify your citizenship is not unbelievable.
Roberts worries me. He stabbed us through the heart on Obamacare, and might do so again on a case as crucial as this.
While I understand and applaud Trump’s plan to get the 14th amendment clarified as to illegal and maybe even legal visitor citizenship (Bravo, Mr. President!), could this be step one in a longer term plan to garner an “official” clarification on the term Natural Born Citizen (NBC)?
Wong Kim Ark was widely quoted as “controlling legal authority” by many of those supporting a relaxed (i.e., “everyone born here is NBC”) interpretation of Natural Born Citizen during the “birther” discussions.
After having dealt with two instances of usurpation and attempted usurpation in the recent past, Obama and Cruz, Trump may be planning to make sure this type of fraud is not committed again.
Never focus too long on what Trump is doing. If you do, you’re behind. You also need to look at what this action could lead to, because he’s already moving on to something else. After all, Trump IS a 5D Chess Master.
Patriots need to support Pres. Trump by now exercising their voting power to elect a Trump-supporting Congress that will do the following.
Speaking of unconstitutional federal taxes, in addition to supporting Trump's vision for MAGA, the new, post-midterm Congress should not only include the following Supreme Court case excerpt at the top of the first pages of all federal tax forms, but also propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states which will put the excerpt in the Constitution.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Military issues aside, note that the US Mail Service (1.8.7) is one of the very few federal domestic spending programs that the Founding States had actually expressly constitutionally delegated to Congress the power to establish.
In other words, most other post-17th Amendment ratification federal domestic spending programs are based on stolen state powers and revenues, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
There are constitutional grounds on which to challenge the Fourteenth Amendment. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was of dubious legality. Southern States that had ratified the 13th Amendment had their representation in the Congress taken away from them unless they voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. The following link describes the “ratification” of the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
Thank God. And thank you for the edifying reply. Much appreciated.
Roberts had a difficult task to reject the ‘tax’ argument that Obama lawyers put forward.
Many people do not know that Obama’s people used the same playbook that the FDR people used in passing Social Security.
During FDR’s reign, the Democrats talked in public about Social Security as an old age pension fund while when challenged in court, they presented it as a tax.
Roberts indeed denied the Democrats on the Commerce Clause but he could not easily deny the tax argument as the 16th A pretty much gives the US Govt Carte Blanche to tax us any way they like.
So I will give Roberts a pass but not easily. He let Obamacare through as a tax, not as a Commerce Clause mandate. He could have used arguments of other dissenting justices but it’s a mystery what he did other than the govt wants to tax us and he can’t stand in the way.
But with the 14th A and its abuse by those that have invented this imagined, improperly extended right of ‘Birthright Citizenship’, I fail to see how Roberts can be misled by arguments from democrat lawyers.
There is no power to tax involved in this issue and the history of the 14th A is abundantly clear to never be abused as it has been. To twist its meaning would require parsing, editing the amendment and I don’t see Roberts doing that. He has never twisted words before.
With Obamacare, Roberts was presented with a tax argument and there was nothing to twist. Obama was within his Constitutional powers to propose a tax for any reason and it was publicly announced as a healthcare mandate. What is said publicly and what is argued in court are separate things.
Ask people to come up with a way for Justice Roberts to twist the 14th A to allow this abuse of Birthright Citizenship, ask them for a legal basis. I don’t see it and other astute persons can’t find it either. I believe we will even see some lefty Justices write against ‘Birthright Citizenship’ as a fundamental right for everyone. The reason I believe this is because there have to be legal underpinnings to such an argument and even lefty Justices, their clerks, their research staff, all have to find those legal arguments and it’s not easy. In fact, it’s near impossible. For sure, they will try and they might write some garbage, but in general, it will not be easy for them,
‘’The 14th was never intended to apply to foreigners.
Any foreigners’’
I don’t think ILLEGAL foreigners are covered by 14th ... No Matter What! Let’s go to court.
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.
When the 14th Amendment issue comes before the Supreme Court, I hope and pray that your prediction about Roberts holds true, but my gut tells me that there's just as big a chance that he'll become the new swing vote on the court.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't trust the guy.
Should have stopped at "Washington Compost".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.