There are parts of Fox News I cannot watch. There is that self-important blowhard...
...There is that worldwide ambulance chaser.
Posted on 08/06/2010 5:32:26 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
John / Billybob
Krauthammer was correct in this statement Bob. In fact he was off by about $12,500.
Read the news - Dealerships are marking the volt up an average of $20,000. Covers the $7500 rebate and puts an additional 12-13 large in the dealers pocket.
Volts are stickering for $61,000
Thanks, John, you are spot-on, as usual.
Supply and demand. I’m all for capitalist auto dealers soaking the loony libs for as much as they can get!
Yep, gotta admit it when I’m wrong. After doing more study I admit that one does have to be born here and under the jurisdiction to be a citizen at birth.
But, that leads to a problem with your other assertion that they just make a law that illegal alliens are not under the jurisdiction without changing Article 14 doesn’t it? Seems if they are not subject to the laws of the United States we would have a whole set of additional problems.
” Charles Krauthammer”
He is a liberal. He will move up to the line crossing into being an American but then pulls back and takes the Marxist view every time.
Without a doubt that idiot has never so much as read the United States Constitution. Not once. He constantly misquotes it. He has never read on word of the founding fathers. He constantly misquotes them and wrongly states their positions.
John / Billybob
I like Charles quite a bit, but he’s wrong sometimes. If it’s a difference of opinion about Constitutional law of Charles vs John Armour, I would pick John.
Good article, Congressman BB.
I get a virus warning as well. I’m using Firefox.
Those two were the first that came to my mind :-)
No, foreign citizens in our country are subject to US jurisdicition, just like any citizen. They are required to obey our laws and can be punished for any violatoins just like us. Even if they are here illegally.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?Let’s read the document, and see where that leads. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?
Skip to the last sentence of the Amendment. It is a clause that appears in many of the Amendments. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
There you have it, in the plain language of the Constitution itself. Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
I think that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" speaks for it's self.
If someone has a baby who is not a citizen, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of citizenship, not the USA.
Therefore, the baby would not have the anchor of citizenship just because he/she is born in the United States if the parents are not citizens.
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”Perhaps you are right that Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United StatesThere you have it, in the plain language of the Constitution itself. Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
But the wording says that Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
There is no reason to define what the amendment already defines IMO.
It seems that only the Supreme Court can decide on the defining issue. We know what they would do, but the wording is clear enough as written.
We know what Justice Brennan stated (unconstitutionally I might add):
"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."That statement is contrary to what the 14th actually says. The Supreme Court should NOT use their opinions to interpret the Constitution, but the should be constitutionally aware enough to see what the wording means. He didn't obviously.
So, uh, why didn't the Republican Congress and the Alleged Republican GW Boosh pass it?
Had they done so, we wouldn't be having this little discussion
What is being arrested, detained, and deported by a superior power if not "being subject to its jurisdiction"?
If illegals were NOT subject to our jurisdiction, then they would not be properly before our courts for removal hearings or hardship waivers.
Of course, our jurisdiction, at least in its common English meaning, extends to these illegals. Here we are exercising our jurisdiction:
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Dude's a lib fraud
Leading yet again to the question....why haven't the "Republicans" bothered to put any political muscle behind either Mr. Stump's bill or Mr. Deal's bill?
As you pointed out, all it takes is a statute.
Which Mr. Krauthammer knows, but deceitfully refuses to say so.
I knew vaguely that dual citizenship for a US citizen is allowed now, but was told in childhood (1950s) that it was not allowed. I googled to see if I could find anything about the change; this site gave the most succinct answer I found:
But I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen -- that if you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give up the other citizenship when you came of age, or else you'd lose your US status. And that if you became a citizen of another country, you'd automatically lose your US citizenship. So what's all this talk about dual citizenship?It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.
Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent -- at least in theory -- to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person's original citizenship to be in effect.
The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized (i.e., accepted) as a fact of life. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll almost always say it's OK.
I can't help wondering if the change in the law on dual citizenship played some part in the current mess.
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.