Posted on 08/20/2015 3:38:06 AM PDT by Biggirl
Talk radio host and author of “Plunder and Deceit,” Mark Levin said that the 14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship on Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Mark’s interview with Professor Edward Erler, Senior Fellow for the
Claremont Institute, on the 14th amendment last night was fascinating.
Check it out, first segment first hour.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio-rewind/
Unfortunately, it would take only one case to get to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that says all anchor babies are citizens, with Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.
I think that in normal times, Levin is correct. But with the current Supreme Court, if this question gets to them, SHAZAM! Charter boats loaded with pregnant women with Ports of Call in every American port until them kid is whelped. Then amnesty for all.
Congress needs to pass a law that says those babies boorn to illegals on American soil are NOT American citizens, but a citizen of the country of their parents.
Congress has the right under the Constitution to make such laws regarding naturalization. Congress also has the right to bar any court from changing or challenging the law.
That’s is all they have to do.
Then, even if a case goes to a federal court on up to the Supreme Court, they are barred from ruling on it. Period.
It is time to put the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court , back into their box.
Otherwise we can have five justices making ALL our laws.
And that is truly unconstitutional.
Pertaining to the 14th Amendment, the historical evidence is clear that the purpose of this Amendment, and the intent of Congress, was t give freed slave American citizenship.
Even Indians of that era were not granted American citizenship at that time—that would not happen until 1924.
A footnote by William O. douglas in 1982 in a majority opinion is not sufficient to confer citizenship on anyone.
That is solely the duty and right of Congress under the Constitution.
Time to stand up for the truth and hang the Left on its own petard.
BUMP BUMP
Michael Medved was saying, on Monday, that the 14th amendment insures their citizenship. He was also saying it as though you are an incompetent boob if you disagree with him.
I’m getting so tired of the GOPe shills. I used to really like him. I guess I outgrew him.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The presidential race is going to do what it’s going to do, but here are 2 things- our part, that we absolutely must do:
Secure the integrity of our elections, one way or another.
Get to work, right away, on those Senate seats up for re-election in 2016. Time is *very* short. The democrats already have their eye on them.
Article on The Hill (just for the purpose of having a list)
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/241694-dems-have-clear-edge-in-2016-race-for-senate
BOR was bloviating about this last evening supporting the anchor babies issue. He beat down one of his guests on it citing a 1985 ruling. Of course when one reviews the ruling one finds it was a note in a ruling about whether the Attorney General was right in not allowing an illegal to gain legal status by staying in the country once deported and then fighting all deportations in the court allowing them to gain 7 year status. What a POS.
I really doubt that it will go that far at this point.
They are simply are singing past the graveyard.
Bttt
He insisted that the 14th Amendment says "any person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States." and the punctuated his statement with an insistent "period!" But of course that is not where the period is in the 14th Amendment. The fourteenth, first sentence reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It's funny how those who want open borders always seem to leave out the bolded part of that sentence.
So if it’s a matter of political allegiance to the U.S. then is it Levin’s contention that children born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents are not and have never been citizens?
Mark Levin said it all in his radio and in his interview on tv.
Thank-you for that posting.
The lefty dimwits in SCOTUS would interpret it as since they are in the U.S., they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. We know that is not what was meant, but they will use current political arguments to the contrary.
“Congress has the right under the Constitution to make such laws regarding naturalization. Congress also has the right to bar any court from changing or challenging the law.”....
It will have to wait for a POTUS who will NOT veto it, we all know Odumbo will NOT sign it.
Expect the majority opinion being drafted by the "wise Latina." Congress should still pass a law stating what the 14th amendment is supposed to mean, but you are right that the constitutional challenge would probably succeed with the current court. In the meantime while that is litigated, what would not be challengeable would be cutting the rope to the anchor babies. Congress could change the law tomorrow preventing parents from being petitioned by U.S. citizen children if they were not either outside the U.S. or present in the U.S. in lawful status (not including visitor, student or diplomat status) at the time of the birth of the petitioning child. Who can petition, who is deemed admissible and the process for immigration is still up to Congress.
And the short answer is?
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.