Posted on 08/18/2015 6:59:52 PM PDT by GilGil
Mark Levin has done a whole show today on birthright citizenship. This would be the 8/18/2015 show. He made it very clear that birthright citizenship is not in the constitution or protected under the constitution for foreigners. He went into the history of who has the right to citizenship as defined in the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment . He also goes into the fact that congress has the right to define who gets citizenship under article 1,section 8. This discussion is very very specific and shows that this mess is a failure of congress to act and nothing more.
It is an outstanding briefing if you are all confused.
If there is a question about a term then legislative history may be consulted, not foreign law.
Thanks for doing this!
The source is common sense and standard judicial practice. If an amendment did change what already existed, it wouldn’t amend anything. For example, the Constitution specified that Senators were to be appointed by the states. The 17th Amendment says Senators are elected by direct vote. If the latter amendment didn’t supersede the original, it would have no effect.
I don’t have to listen to it to point out a basic principle. For an amendment to amend anything, it has to supersede the original. I specifically said I wasn’t arguing with his conclusion. It may well be that the 14th doesn’t apply to children of illegals. Maybe you should read what I actually wrote before you respond.
Congress has ‘plenary’ power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
The courts don’t——The marxist muslim in the White hut doesn’t have the power. The 14th amendment was enacted for freed slaves. It doesn’t limit Congress’ power of naturalization at all.
Scrotus has no say who is or who is not a citizen.
I didn’t say there was a conflict. I said IF THERE IS A CONFLICT the amendment would supersede the original. Whether there is a conflict is a separate issue.
Perhaps you could explain why the Founders saw fit to include the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” instead of simply All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.
To memorize ) Thank-you.
Levin’s point that an illegal is not under the jurisdiction of our government is totally valid. If the illegal gave himself over to US jurisdiction he would be detained and deported back to the country that does have valid jurisdiction. The illegal intentionally rejects US jurisdiction.
Words mean something.
The amendment does not state: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
It instead states:”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.”
Even a SCJ should have been able to understand the meaning.
Bump for Later
I think the point is you cannot by yourself enter into the jurisdiction of the united states.
“Chinese parents legally present in the United States.”
good point missed by most they were not here illegally. different class and that opinion should not hold but that assume law rules.
Well if the Congress does not have the power to decide citizenship and it certainly is not invested in the President then it must be up to the States.
I guess the States an individually decide how Citizenship is conferred upon its people by virtue of the Tenth Amendment.
The States must be then within their rights to deny birthright citizenship to the newborns of all foreign nationals.
It’s as valid a way of looking at the problem as any of the others (perhaps more). But of course our statist Supreme Court would never see it that way.
bookmark.
You're right, it doesn't.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
You'd have trouble getting that fact acknowledged though - not only because the federal government has decided denizens don't EXIST, but because doing so would mean the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional.
Which they had no legitimate authority to do-
---
But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.
"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries
---
It was up to the State of California to decide if Ark was a citizen or not, not the federal government.
If child is also Mexican citizen to what country is child subject?
Mexico. By their laws and ours.
Simple practical test: declare war on Mexico. Institute a draft. See whose side all the Mexicans are on.
I can tell you that subtle propaganda has turned third generation Mexican Americans into gabachos sp? People who think they are more Mexican than American.
Except in the case of Scottish 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.