Posted on 08/18/2015 6:59:52 PM PDT by GilGil
You want me to listen to the entire segment again, and refute it point by point? It’s not really worth my time to do that, and I really have no interest in trying to refute Levin—don’t get me wrong, I generally agree with Levin on most issues, he’s a smart lawyer and an astute observer. I just happen to disagree with a couple of the individual points he made, and I cited the Constitutional language that forms the basis of my disagreement.
A Child born of a Mexican citizen born in any country is a Mexican citizen so is a dual issue of subject to jurisdiction. Any child born in Mexico is a Mexican citizen. Hmmmm.
What a mess.
Yes, right there in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 4 that says so.
Right here. More proof and perfidy by the GOPE derailing legislation.
In 2005, Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal introduced his Citizenship Reform Act, which garnered 70 cosponsors and made its debut in a Republican-controlled House. Yet the GOP leadership refused to let the legislation limiting birthright citizenship come to a vote. Deal tried again in 2007 with the Birthright Citizenship Act, which met the same fate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2509715/posts
I happen to agree with Levin’s Constitutional interpretation. I believe that Scalia, Thomas and Alito would as well. Unfortunately the other 6 Supreme Court Justices have rejected all rules of Constitutional and statutory construction in favor of “It says whatever the hell we want it to say.”
A Court that can discover a previously unknown Constitutional right to homosexual marriage hidden in the emanations of penumbra will have no problem finding a Constitutional to anchor baby citizenship for illegal aliens in the 14th Amendment.
Bookmark
tnks
BTW, I am also an attorney duly licensed to practise law by the State of Texas, the District of Columbia, a half dozen federal district courts, two federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court, so I think I can grasp the basic issues is Constitutional interpretation.
No. He did not say that!
Wonderful. Listen to what Levin has said and refute what points you disagree with and why.
Or better yet call him and take him to task. When you do I would love to know which show it is so we can listen.
Congress is littered with thousands of attorneys with credentials and all they have done is screw everything up. Credentials alone mean very little these days until you can tell us what you have done with them.
So far you have told us what is not possible which is like a typical attorney. Create a huge mess. Charge a lot for it and claim you have accomplished something.
That is a typical attorney. Been there done that!
"While that decision is incorrect in light of the Civil Rights Act, even Wong Kim Ark nonetheless would not secure citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
The only Supreme Court support for birthright citizenship is Plyler v. Doe, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision written by ultra-liberal Justice William Brennan, which claimed that “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.” "
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/07/06/fourteenth-amendment-empowers-congress-to-end-birthright-citizenship/
In the meantime I'd expect him to do a superb job drying up most of the illegal immigration by vigorously enforcing the laws.
With as much leeway as Obama had to do whatever he wanted, Trump being a contract guy would see loopholes the size of airplanes. I would not be too worried about tat. He would drive is opponents to suicide and he would be very effective.
Amazing isn’t it? At one time Harry Reid was a decent politician with a love of this country. Wonder what the current occupant has on him.
More about that 1982 *footnote by Brennen. So we no more than court “dicta” as in not binding to the subsequent case as legal precedent? LoL. Trump should easily brush aside this nonsense.
- - - - - -
“Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events”
http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
“In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay. ...
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “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.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”
Don’t know what they have on him, but that shiner he got right before he quit a real story to tell.
Yes. I don't think it's going to be much a problem as people think it will be including some of these so-called lawyers here once the facts are known. See post 73.
Nevada politics ;)
Are you kidding? With his phone and his pen Trump can be very convincing. Trump always talks about leverage. He will find all the leverage he wants. That I know.
I agree he can be very persuasive. He’s going to lead Congress around for sure; too bad for Boehner and Ditch. ;-)
The Wong Kim Ark case was interesting reading. In their analysis, the Court made clear that their decision hinged on the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and neither the constitution nor any existing statute provided a definition of that term. They acknowledged that Congress had authority to define that term but since it had not done so, they would turn to English Common Law for guidance.
Since it was acknowledged that Congress had authority to provide a definition of the relevant term, couldn’t they do so now. If they did so by statute, that law would be controlling over any previous reliance on common law. There would be no question of trying to change the constitution by law, they would simply be providing a definition the Court had acknowledged they had the power to do.
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.