Posted on 08/26/2015 8:21:02 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Carly Fiorina criticized Donald Trump’s plan to eliminate birth right citizenship, saying, “I do not support amending the Constitution and frankly in this regard honestly, I think Donald Trump is acting like the politicians he excoriates.”
“Let’s hold a bright, shiny object out here, let’s amend the Constitution and end birth right citizenship. It is not going to happen,” Fiorina, appearing on “Morning Joe” Wednesday, continued.
Mike Barnicle: Do you believe in birth right citizenship?
Carly Fiorina: I think it is in our Constitution. I do not support amending the Constitution and frankly in this regard honestly, I think Donald Trump is acting like the politicians he excoriates. Let’s hold a bright, shiny object out here, let’s amend the Constitution and end birth right citizenship. It is not going to happen. Whether people are for it or not, it’s not going to happen. The reason I say it’s a distraction, is because what I will do is expend all of my political capital and political energy on doing the one thing we haven’t done for 25 years. Let’s secure the border, let’s fix the legal immigration system which is such a huge part of the reason we have so many illegal immigrants. Talk, talk, talk. It’s all anybody has been doing for 25 years. We need to buckle down and get this stuff done. It’s not rocket science.
Mika Brzezinski: Carly Fiorina. Great to have you on the show.
Joe Scarborough: Carly Fiorina, doing something radical, coming out in support of the 14th Amendment, which a lot of Republicans, people in my party are not doing.
Trump could get elected. And the economy could turn around very strongly. And Trump could prove to be very popular as a result of it. But the people who will be most disappointed in a Trump Administration are movement conservatives. Trump is about as conservative as Arnold. Trump is a populist, yes. A conservative no. He has done jack diddly squat for the conservative movement over the years.
“Trump could get elected. And the economy could turn around very strongly.”
Another thing that I would like to see is an end — or at least slowing down — of the relentless demoralization of the American Psyche by the left — their cohorts in the media and other strategic places.
Trump has already begun the process by taking the leftist media down a peg: As POTUS he could do even more in other areas.
We shall see.
STE=Q
It is most certainly in the 14th Amendment. The only question is if the 14th Amendment applies to illegal aliens, and that question revolves around the requirement that they be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The courts have held, over and over again, that illegal aliens are subject to US jurisdiction and the birthright citizenship included in the 14th Amendment applies to them. There is every reason to think they will continue to do so. Wishing it were not so will not make it happen. If the United States asserts that birthright citizenship does not apply to illegal aliens, they will be brought to court and lose every day of the week and twice on Sundays. This is reality. Any politician who asserts otherwise is lying.
The only way to eliminate this clear provision of the 14th Amendment is to amend the Constitution. I think this should be done, but I don’t think it would be easy. Any politician who says otherwise is lying to you.
I like Fiorina’s statement that Presidential campaigns will reveal the character of the candidates over time and under pressure. I think this repeated and obvious lie by Donald Trump (and the Wannabe Chorus) that birthright citizenship can be eliminated without amending the Constitution is very revealing, and I have a hard time taking any politician seriously who will lie in such an obvious fashion.
AMENDMENT 14:
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This is clear and unambiguous language.
Read it yourself. What do you think?
Is a baby born to illegal aliens parents born in the United States? Is he subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
You just conveniently “forgot” to quote the author of the amendment, who together with scholars, such as Mark Levin and many others, are of different opinion likewise YOURS!
Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause
Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, author of the Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship.[34][35] Some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[36] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.[37] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule.!!
They claim your Anchor Babies 9ILLEGAL ALIENS) are solely attached to a foreign country.======= Check-mate!!!
She’s a political pinhead.
If she doesn’t support amending the constitution, why does she support the 14th amendment?
Amendment is not a dirty word. It’s probably the only way grass-roots conservatives could’ve won on defining marriage (an amendment 15 years ago would have passed and would still not have enough support to be overturned today). And it’s the only way conservatives could win on abortion, a balanced budget, and this birthright issue.
It took many, many years to change the definition of marriage, yet the liberals never gave up and did it. It actually ended up taking less time than they even thought.
Why are conservatives so impatient? You can’t win big victories in the short-term. And the most recent amendment actually passed pretty quickly I believe.
The current Supreme Court will NEVER interpret the constitution to change the current definition of birthright citizenship.
It WILL require an amendment unless the makeup of the court changes, and an amendment is safer anyway so that a liberal court can’t reverse things later.
Why are conservatives so gunshy about trying to get an amendment passed? It’ll pass in tons of conservative states quickly and then we just need to run a campaign and put pressure on the rest and Congress to pass it. Plus, we get the benefit of hanging it out there as an election issue, and possibly throwing out more liberals who won’t sign onto it. If the process takes a while, that HELPS us because we can use it as an election issue and a way to primary RINOs out.
She doesn’t wear very well—the more exposure the gets the more irritating she is.
Hewitt asked Trump about specific bible books and passages this week. Trump dodged the question and went on for a while about his experience attending church over the years until Hewitt forgot what he asked originally.
Some people can some cant. Carly, you ought to kjow that. Life is not fair carly. You ought to know that too.
Pass the bill and then let the other side go to the courts to appeal it. The problem is that you can't even get the bill out of a Rep controlled Congress.
“What a fraud this woman is. She’s the RINO’s choice for VP.”
She was obviously a RINO when she ran for the Senate. It’s a good thing she’s showing her true colors for people to see.
Yeah, I thought he would. He better back off on the bible, or come out and say I probably need to be a better reader of it, because someone is going to challenge him on being a country club Christian. In other words, be honest about it, and don’t embellish it. There is nothing shameful to say you went to church listened to the sermons, but have not read the entire bible.
Any one who comes out against Trump in any way has their poll numbers sink fast, looks like Fiorina may learn this the hard way.
Really? Her most replayed line, that got her bounce from the kiddie table debate was "I didn't get a call from Bill Clinton, did any of you"
Just one more clarification of your screwed opinion!!!
How many milliseconds is it going to take for a Federal Judge to decide that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens?
These are the same judges who decided that Obamacare mandates are like Schroedinger’s Cat, both a tax and not a tax at the same time, depending on what is necessary to make it legal, or that “exchange set up by the State” means “exchange set up by the Federal Government.”
The state of modern jurisprudence is that judges twist the law to get the result they want, and the law be damned. That will happen in this case, regardless of your argument.
PS. i also disagree with your argument, but that is irrelevant.
You don’t have to disagree with me, I didn’t wrote the law. You have to disagree with Senator Jacob Howard, if you can get hold in him, he’s the man who wrote it. But regardless of all your tries of going around it or manipulate it to your likings, it’s STILL the law. is it not???
Unfortunately, we can’t dig up Senator Jacob Howard. Instead we have to rely on living Judges, like Sonya Sotamayor, Elena Kagan, and John Roberts.
If Congress passes a law that denies birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, do you think that will pass muster with the US Supreme Court?
It would have a snowball’s chance in Hell.
So, to answer your question, it is not still the law. The law is whatever current jurisprudence says the law is. I don’t like it any better than you do. I just don’t deny it.
Any politician who says that he can end birthright citizenship without a Constitutional Amendment is lying.
You can object all you want about the original intent of Senator Howard, but we recently went through a case where the intent of the Senators who passed Obamacare was abundantly clear, and documented to a fare-the-well, and John Roberts and four other Judges said that what Congress intended did not matter as much as making sure the law works as they would like it to work. That is the reality we live in.
So, what you have to ask yourself is, why are you so eager to believe the comforting lie from the candidate you support? Are you happy to lose in the end, as long as you can feel aggrieved, and cling to your scrap of paper from Senator Howard, and can rail about how corrupt the system is? Is that the end game? Because it is still losing.
I am tired of losing. I do not want to lose again. So if it is going to take a Constitutional Amendment, that is where we should set the bar.
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.
