There are parts of Fox News I cannot watch. There is that self-important blowhard...
...There is that worldwide ambulance chaser.
John / Billybob
Great analysis plus every day we have eveidence that Mexico considers its wayward citizens here to still be under Mexican jurisdiction. Mexico does this by issuing matricula consular ID cards to Mexican illegal aliens at its US consulates. Legal Mexicans can get them too, then they have a convenient alternate ID to use in criminal situations.
Mexico has also interfered in numerous court cases on US soil that involved illegal alien Mexicans. A well known one was in Texas where it agitated publicly and hired lawyers for an illegal alien murderer in Texas. Trying to save this scumbag from the death penalty. Mexico failed, thank God!
Mexico makes great efforts to set up voting operations on US soil so it citizens can vote in Mexican elections. Of course being an illegal alien is not a factor. The legals and illegals both can vote
Mexico is claiming jurisdiction all the time. We don’t need to amend the Constitution. We just need the right laws passed and a judge to rule on it who is not traitorous
Off topic, is Heath going to lose this time?
I think I saw a piece saying he is in trouble.
Thanks, John, you are spot-on, as usual.
” 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.
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.
“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:
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.
Thank you. Mr. Krauthammer is usually right, but not always. I was quite alarmed when no one on that panel appeared to understand why this is important.
He's also dead wrong on the 2nd. What's he right about.