Posted on 04/29/2003 6:32:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
This is the first interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record.
The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)Enjoy!
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
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.
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
If somebody has findlaw, could you please bring up Bridges v. Wixon, 326 US 35 (1945)? There I believe is a clarification that legal aliens are under US jurisdiction (which frankly contradicts the first ruling).
Clearly illegal aliens are not.
But it would be legally wrong to conclude the opposite based on that case.
No kidding. Have you read the full opinion? I haven't yet, but the history therein promises to be most interesting reading. The rise of corporations funded by European money just after the Civil War was the reason I had developed an interest in the 14th Amendment. The owners of the "charitable" foundations that came out of that period have played a key role in the global institutional corruption that has its nexxus at the UN. What that trend portends is probably well understood from the predative history of the Dutch East India corporation cited therein. I am intent upon studying the foundation of what I suspect is a legal house of cards.
It is highly unlikely that the Court would rule the same way today, or use it as a precedent.
Excuse me, but that sounds just like the "living Constitution" crap we get from liberals, who only use precedents that are convenient to fit their agenda. Are you asserting that the current court, or that which is likely to be appointed by President Bush will continue to pay obeiscance to habitual flaunting of the Constitution by the Executive Branch? I agree that it might.
The interesting thing about the ruling is that the Court had access to the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment. A constructionist court would therefore interpret the Amendment per its intent and meaning when ratified. If the people want something different, they can pass a new amendment offering citizenship to whoever they wish.
Such an Amendment wouldn't pass either, would it?
So we get the ideological ilk of Bridges v. Wixon, 326 US 35 (1945) the work of a fully packed Roosevelt court. It is a case that carries far less weight interpreting the 14th Amendment (at least in the objective sense) than does the Slaughterhouse Cases however well habituated those corporations have become to the destruction of our national sovereignty.
Further, should those who advocate reasserting the sovereignty of the United States and demand that it control its borders find out that Constitutional law, as written and interpreted by the SCOTUS, has been TOTALLY contradicted by the government, the anger that fact will generate might well weaken the political will to continue with the current policy. Don't you think Mr. Tancredo would like this little paragraph in his hands? I do.
Finally, the States have borne the cost of maintaining social services for the children of aliens based upon the fraudulent premise that those services were being dispensed to American citizens. The States would thus have stronger cause to demand compensation from the Federal government for those costs.
I agree with you that the Slaughterhouse cases have not oft been cited, but the reason for that may well be more confirmation of its import than it is reason to ignore it.
Race baiting already? No dice. The problem isn't race; it's rate.
Basically, these guys got in a boat and just showed up and presto, they were legal, while after 1920 or so, you could not do that.
All the people you listed were born the thirteen colonies. None were immigrants. They placed restrictions in the Constitution that no foreign born person could be President too.
Once again, the 5-4 decision emphasizes how important it is to maintain a conservative majority on the Court.
This is why in 2004, we must re elect GW with at least 60 Republican Senators.
I don't want to wait that long, much less depend upon Bush's reelection and getting a supermawhority in the Senate to finally get some decent judges. Frist had better get off his tusch or the Bush Presidency could turn out to be a puff of hot air. Imagine Hillary appointing judges to the SCOTUS.
A little weak on US history, eh?
Only one of the first tier founding fathers was foreign-born - Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the Caribbean. The rest were quite native.
So, uh, Jefferson, Washington and Franklin, got in a boat and just showed up, hmmm. Might I suggest you revisit your junior high school American history book. These men were all born and bred in the original colonies you historically challenged dolt!
Not at all. If Bush can get a younger and more constructionist court in this term, it would make a world of difference toward reining in a Hillary. This filibuster MUST be broken. It's that critical.
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.