Posted on 04/05/2011 12:22:35 AM PDT by The Big Boo
It is a rule of legislative construction, that one law must explicitly say it is changing or amending an existing law, if that is the desired objective.
If such explicit language is not found in the text of the "amending" law, then recourse is made to the "intent" of the amending law. This intent is determined by the debate and other language used during the process of enacting the new law.
If after this, the intent is stll not clear, then a determination must be made whether both the new and old law can both be read to give effect to their primary and original requirements.
If this cannot be done, the new law may suffer a fatal defect and have no legal impact on the "supposed" amendments.
A Constitutional Amendment, like the Constitution, is law.
The 14th Amendment does not explicitly amend or change Article II regarding the natural born requirements of POTUS. Its only reference to the President lies in prohibiting office holding by those electeds or other officers of states who foreswore their oath to the U.S. by joining the Confederacy. This was not meant to be a permanent injunction. The 14th Amendment does not mention "natural born". Rather it deals with citizenship and in particular baring states from prevening citizenship for the newly freed slaves. This is all easily understandable as it was a reconstruction era Amendment. In such a universe and at such a time, more than ever coming after the terrible civil war, it would be unthinkable for Congress to "water" down in any fashion the requirement for natural born as POTUS.
Given that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT explicitly repeal or amend Article II regarding natural born, if one were to make such a difficult reach, one would have to look to intent.
There is NO, that would be NONE, that would be NADDA evidence of any intent that the 14th Amendment would apply or change the eligibility requirements of Article II, excepting the issue of the oath as cited above. In fact the Father of the 14th Amendment, says just the opposite, that it WILL NOT change natural born.
Given that the 14th Amendment does not explicitly repeal or amend Article II regarding natural born, and given that the intent of 14th Amendment, clearly recorded by those who authored it at the time, was NOT to change the requirements of Natural Born, it then comes down to, is there a way that both laws can be read to give effect to their desired outcomes and requirements?
In this case, yes. Because Article II regarding natural born was not changed, it shall be as it always was: a person born in country of two citizen parents.
And for "citizenship" of the newly freed slaves, the purpose of the 14th Amendment, no state will obstruct their rights. There is no contradiction between the two.
The 14th Admenment does not suffer a fatal flaw and may have effect on its desired outcome.
I am surprised how supposed "experts" here on FR can spout on and on about Wom Kim Ark nonsense and the 14th Amendment when they have absolutely no apparent familiarity with the basic rules of legislative interpretation.
Sadly, in a free republic we cannot avoid hearing their blubbering nonsense as they pontificate their falsehoods.
The Big Boo
It isn’t a type of citizenship, which is why I sent you a link to USCIS. It is ONLY an eligibility requirement per the U.S. Constitution.
The SCOTUS disagreed. The USCIS doesn't trump what the court said since NBC is defined outside statutory law.
Sorry, but if Leo disagrees with me interpretation, he can sign up and post here. I'm not chasing after some argument that you can't make for yourself.
Couldn't follow your own headline's advice, I see....
I’ll note you could not find fault in the proper deduction of legal reasoning and inapplicability of the 14th amendment to effectuate any change to the permanent meaning of natural born cititzen and instead resorted to stamping your feet.
Good move since it’s best you have...
The Big Boo
“The 14th amendment was the most irresponsibly written amendment in the Constitution.
No, that would be the 16th”
The problem with the 16th amendment was the intention of the author and radifers, not any kind of careless wording, such as is the case of the 14th amendment.
It can be argued that the 14th amendment is also a result of some illconseived intentions(an assertion I would make), but the vast majority of the evils to result form the 14th were in fact,unlike the 16th amendment, wholy unintended.
In terms of irresponsible intentions nether the 16th nor the 14th hold a candle to the 17th. The 17th like the 16th was the result of a compete failure to understand the basic competitive nature of federalism.
The 16th like the 17th was written by people who were among America’s worse generation.
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.