Posted on 08/18/2015 3:22:38 PM PDT by cotton1706
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. - US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1
(Excerpt) Read more at law.cornell.edu ...
If they make up stuff now, what's to stop them from doing it with a new amendment? The problem is corrupt judges. Not the words or correct meaning.
If they want to deliberately interpret something wrong, they will. See "Gay Marriage." In 1787 they hung people for sodomy, they didn't argue they had a right to "marry."
Do you have documentation on that? What was that all about?
I'm not going to get too deep into it tonight, but it is a matter of history. The 14th was passed during reconstruction after the Civil War. The Southern states were told that Union troops would continue occupying them unless they voted for the 13,14,and 15th amendments.
They basically twisted their arm and forced them to ratify it to get their rights restored. If I recall correctly, they would not be readmitted to the Union unless their legislatures voted to approve those amendments, and therefore they would have no representation in congress, and would simply be required to continue doing whatever the occupation forces told them to do.
Anyway, it's late, and I'm going to bed. I may look up some more details of it tomorrow, but It is quite evident that without that deliberate arm twisting, they would not have achieved a sufficient number of states to ratify that amendment.
Wrong, it’s time to impeach these hemorroid-ridden black robed SCUMBAGS.
Congress has sole power of naturalizaiton. FARK THE COURTS and FU Bucktooth kenyan.
What, they have immunity?
I understand that argument, but if we don’t pass an amendment making it explicitly clear that children of illegal aliens do not get citizenship at birth and we let Congress pass a law revoking said citizenship, we’ll end up with an unfavorable SCOTUS decision.
Knowing liberals, we’ll end up with a whole new class of protected individuals against whom we cannot discriminate.
Pursue it in court. That’s great. Also pursue an amendment.
Ignore the courts and ignore liberal rumswabs like yourself.
I think to fix what is wrong with this country, we must first destroy the existing liberal media monopoly on the information streams to the public.
But that's another topic.
I think to fix what is wrong with this country, we should physically remove the D.C. cartel from D.C. They can go willingly or otherwise, but go they must.
That too is another topic.
I think removing the existing media is a necessary step in achieving that. I don’t think it can be done without destroying the existing media.
Let me smoke some banana peels and huff some whippet canisters so I can catch up......
105 posted on Sun Aug 16 2015 16:53:33 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Electric Graffiti
Go back to your banana peels and whippet canisters.
Your own arguments are as illustrative of this observation as any.
The USSC has dealt with this over and over.
Actually, they haven’t. There hasn’t been a case involving the children of ILLEGAL aliens. All the cases I know of involve parents who were in the United States LEGALLY when they had a child. It is a distinction that should not be overlooked.
Presidents are not involved in the amendment process, Nixon did not sign any paper having to do with XXVI.
The paragraph you cite obviously gives no consideration to immigration laws, which probably did not exist at the time. It assumes the county entered accepts the people willingly, and has no laws prohibiting them or subjecting them to imprisonment or fines for entering. To enter in violation of the receiving nation’s law is an act of war.
In that more practical day, the answer to the question, “What about those who enter illegally?” would be “Arrest them! If they have kids in prison, then their kids are subjects - but the parents are not. Let the parents stay in prison and be deported when they leave.”
The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
That whole business starting with Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions is convoluted. Dred Scott didn’t help either. But IMO, the whole Civil War/post-Civil War thing is another example of the feds taking action without constitutional authority which, of course is tyranny. Besides that, there is evidence that either society itself or 2/3 of the legislature or states would have killed slavery sooner or later becasue its heinous nature.
It is my belief that slavery was eventually going to succumb to societal condemnation, regardless of how much money it was making. It would have taken longer without the war, but I think it would have eventually withered away into nothing anyway.
There were anti slavery societies in the South too, and all the high social circles were feeling pressure to condemn it. It was only a matter of time. A war was unnecessary, and was in fact a great tragedy.
The Southern states blew it and so did Lincoln and the Northern states.
If there were any hasty or unconstitutional federal laws or decisions against the South, the Southern states should have nullified the acts as unconstitutional. They would have been on solid constitutional ground. Instead it appears the South ceded from the Union in anticipation of such federal action.
If the South ceded without constitutional basis, then Lincoln and the North may have had constitutional grounds to prevent such secession. The South instead of seceding could have dealt with any specific unconstitutional federal laws or action by declaring such null and void with clear constitutional reasoning. For example, if Congress were to pass a law forbidding slavery, the South could show that the Constitution gave the feds no authority to pass such a law. If the South had done that, the North would be without constitutional recourse and if the feds were to mind their constitutional business, the whole issue would have eventually gone away.
Unconstitutional federal action, which is probably at least around 80% of federal action today, is by definition tyranny and, therefore, destructive and should be resisted at every level. It is as true then as it is now.
Violating the Constitution as written and originally intended and understood is how the Left attempts to change the Constitution either by ignoring it legislatively or actively changing it from the bench.
The liberal theorist doctrine of "positive law" (if it's a law it is valid because it is a law) is fatally flawed but it continues to be one way they attempt get around the Constitution. But the Supremacy Clause requires valid federal law to be made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution.
Legislative intent is a foundation issue in understanding and properly applying the law.
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.