Replies

Pre-17A Senate corruption is evidenced by state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices on the Supreme Court by the late 19th century. More specifically, in the Courts decision in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Wong) case, activist justices wrongly interpreted the 14th Amendment as giving citizenship to anybody born in the states.

The text of the 14th amendment is clear. If someone is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, they are a citizen. If someone is born in the US to illegal immigrant parents and then at 18 engages in drug trafficking, that person can be tried in a federal court. This person was born in the US and is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

The problem with the Courts decision is that it wrongly ignored that the congressional record shows that the federal lawmakers who proposed the 14th Amendment (14A) to the states for ratification had clarified that 14A is not to be interpreted as saying that a person born in the states is not automatically a citizen as the Wong justices later argued.

The congressional record is not a source of law. It is not passed by Congress, signed by the President, or ratified by the states. Also including the congressional record as a source of law will vastly increase the ability of prosecutors, judges, and federal agencies to burden Americans needless subpoenas and regulations.

In fact, Senate is also now refusing to work with the House to impeach and remove lawless presidents, and is also still confirming activist justices that the Senate likewise refuses to remove from the bench when such justices blatantly ignore the federal governments constitutionally limited powers.

The one time the Senate had the opportunity to remove a lawless president prior to the 17th amendment, they did not because they were worried that the then President Pro Tempore would become president.

Not to go off track too far, but my own thoughts regarding 14A while taking into account Wong and the original intent and traditional legal meanings of words and phrases used, I don't think it covers spawn of invaders dropped within our borders. But like I said in a previous post, I leave the legal stuff to others in the family. That is not to say I don't read up on things and form my own opinions.

The text of the 14th amendment is clear. If someone is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, they are a citizen. If someone is born in the US to illegal immigrant parents and then at 18 engages in drug trafficking, that person can be tried in a federal court. This person was born in the US and is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

If someone breaks into my home, they are likewise subject to jurisdiction of the make my day law and whatever means I have laying around - be it a firearm, baseball bat, kitchen knife, compound bow, or even a bowling ball. The fact that they enter uninvited does not in any way grant them or anything they may drop here citizenship in YankOkiedom.