View Full Version : If Words Matter...(US Constitution) then Let’s Argue!
Old Dog New Trick
10-31-2018, 14:26
President Trump as others before him (namely Harry Reid) want to redefine a sentence in the 14th Amendment to eliminate citizenship simply because the baby popped out on US soil or a territory under the control of The United States of America.
Those words being: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
What does that exactly mean? I’m not a lawyer nor a judge and certainly not a Supreme Court Justice but, all those kinds and types of people before me sure have a lot to say about this sentence...
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems to me there have been an awful lot of interpretations and judicial opinions on exactly who the people are, and what infringement means.
I’ll argue that in order for a child to become a US citizen at birth then at least one or both of the parents have to be a US citizen and/or a naturalized citizen, green card holder, or otherwise legally allowed to be in the United States awaiting jurisdictional judgement (asylum) by a federal or state court. Absent any of the above and or in violation of any laws or unlawful occupation of the United States or Territories thereof your offspring are citizens of the country of the mother at time of birth and both will be subject to immediate deportation after release or discharge from the hospital or place of birth.
The United States “shall not issue a birth certificate declaring citizenship or grant other benefits (SSN) or Medicaid to anyone not showing proof of citizenship.”
MHO - argue the sentence and word “jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th as it pertains to the 2nd “shall not be infringed” and let the judgements and “jurisdiction” of state and federal law abolish every gun law since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The SC has never ruled on that sentence yet.
As the Amendment was targeting former Slaves and Indians there was lots of argument over the Indians because on the reservation they were not subject to US jurisdiction.
The courts have been dancing around "jurisdiction" for years with illegal border jumpers.
D'rats argue they are under jurisdiction - have rights.
R's argue that since they are illegal they have no jurisdictional rights.
This will end up in the SC and you know what the D's will say about that.
Here's what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say about it's intent:
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Source article: The 14th Amendment (https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html)
I didn’t like it when President Obama used his phone and a pen and I’m not comfortable with President Trump using the same to craft such an important policy.
Congress and eventually the SCt needs to address this matter.
I didn’t like it when President Obama used his phone and a pen and I’m not comfortable with President Trump using the same to craft such an important policy.
Congress and eventually the SCt needs to address this matter.
Well, no one has challenged it so this may do it. You know that an EO will be challenged and stopped by a judge and end up before the Court. And he changed the balance of the Court so this is actually good.
Well, no one has challenged it so this may do it. You know that an EO will be challenged and stopped by a judge and end up before the Court. And he changed the balance of the Court so this is actually good.
Concur - raising this issue is critical - as is stemming the tide of illegal border crossings. And, as you point out an EO is easy come and potentially easy go. I prefer the hard work be put in “to do it right.”
Trump has again raised a very important immigration issue that will ultimately be decided by the SCt...hopefully a more conservative SCt. And, that court with two of his nominees now sitting on the court...may just have been the “hard work” needed to get something done. And, as you say, this may ultimately be a good thing. But, I still shudder thinking about egomaniacs with phones and pens. I still have faith in the genius of separation of powers.
[QUOTE=tonyz;647107]I didn’t like it when President Obama used his phone and a pen and I’m not comfortable with President Trump using the same to craft such an important policy.[h/QUOTE]
It seems that any EO would simply enforce the Amendment. Maybe he should do the same for the second!
[QUOTE=tonyz;647107]I didn’t like it when President Obama used his phone and a pen and I’m not comfortable with President Trump using the same to craft such an important policy.[h/QUOTE]
It seems that any EO would simply enforce the Amendment. Maybe he should do the same for the second!
Lol, hey, I’m all for abolishing the NFA...I just prefer debate and deliberation in Congress and ultimately interpretations made in the SCt. It just feels better to me, given the system that we’ve been blessed with from the Founders.
IMO, the EO business can too easily get out of hand. And, EOs are easy-come-easy-go depending on the potential in shopping for friendly judges issuing injunctions against any EO and the inevitable shifts in power of the executive office.
Concur - raising this issue is critical - as is stemming the tide of illegal border crossings. And, as you point out an EO is easy come and potentially easy go. I prefer the hard work be put in “to do it right.”
I would prefer that too, however for the past two years congress has been sitting on their asses wasting a golden opportunity to push an agenda befitting having the WH, Senate and the house.
I would prefer that too, however for the past two years congress has been sitting on their asses wasting a golden opportunity to push an agenda befitting having the WH, Senate and the house.
I feel your pain...
Congress and many executive agencies are filled with scumbags...the deep state lives !
Congress can’t even pass a budget, lol. No way they can handle tackling this issue. Issue the EO and let the SCOTUS sort it out. If we are lucky maybe RBG will punch out before the issue hits the bench and we can get another fresh body in there.
Badger52
10-31-2018, 19:25
Loved that articleAgree. (h/t Pat). They may not like it, but that's the kind of thing justices consider when they're actually looking into the scholarship of a law and the words of the amendment's author don't leave much ambiguity.
Old Dog New Trick
10-31-2018, 20:20
Here's what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say about it's intent:
Source article: The 14th Amendment (https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html)
Brilliant!
So SCOTUS has indeed affirmed the original intent and found within the context of the 14th that unlawful persons and those here that have not sought or claimed citizenship through due process have no standing as to give birthright citizenship to their offspring.
It’s sad that the GOP are weak minded spineless cucks because for all the bluster this week they could simply address this issue and move it forward with a majority vote. Of course this will wind its way to the SCOTUS and new laws will be created but to say that it is unconstitutional is blatantly false.
Hint my assertion that the many laws created to restrict and control the rights guaranteed under the 2nd are unconstitutional and need to be rescinded if the interpretation of the 14th can be so misleading. Oh and there are other instances in the BOR and written law that are inconsistent with the framers intent.
ETA: I too would rather see a bill introduced in the legislature to address this but it seems our legislators are too inept to get something passed on immigration. If the President does it by EO this line item will proceed faster into the court system and lead straight to the Supremes before Trump leaves office. But, it will still have to pass muster in the Congress and become law - not a change to the amendment requiring 2/3rds and 28 states to ratify but a simple USC that prohibits automatic citizenship by birth.
If the President does it by EO this line item will proceed faster into the court system and lead straight to the Supremes before Trump leaves office. But, it will still have to pass muster in the Congress and become law - not a change to the amendment requiring 2/3rds and 28 states to ratify but a simple USC that prohibits automatic citizenship by birth.
I don't think so because it's referencing the original intent and changes nothing so does not add or remove any new language to the Amendment. Well, it hasn't happened yet but that's my hope given his advisors.
Old Dog New Trick
10-31-2018, 20:43
I don't think so because it's referencing the original intent and changes nothing so does not add or remove any new language to the Amendment. Well, it hasn't happened yet but that's my hope given his advisors.
That’s what I was trying to say. It’s not amending the Amendment and all that goes with it, it’s allowing Congress to write a law supporting the 14th Amendment as it pertains to birthright citizenship.
That’s what I was trying to say. It’s not amending the Amendment and all that goes with it, it’s allowing Congress to write a law supporting the 14th Amendment as it pertains to birthright citizenship.
Oh, Gotcha! :D We don't want that either, though. It would take so many years to adjudicate that the Demons might be back in control again.
At 68, it's truly amazing the epic changes I've seen in our history even at the glacial progress we seem to observe. Obama said it, they take two steps forward then one step back. Well, they are still moving forward one step at a time. Time to "cut them off at the pass".
Ann Coulter’s take on the 14th - fiesty as always.
Excerpt below - complete article at link - worth a read.
https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2018/10/31/the-true-history-of-millstone-babies-n2533765
The True History of Millstone Babies
TownHall
Ann Coulter|Posted: Oct 31, 2018 4:06 PM
Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.
No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.
Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.
Badger52
11-01-2018, 17:30
Ann Coulter’s take on the 14th - fiesty as always.
Yeah, read that. Always nice to balance scholarship with some snark from the skinny blonde one. I mean, all work & no play...
Just another example to prove that our nations elected representation prefers inaction and incompetence over ANYTHING that will improve the state of affairs
cat in the hat
11-02-2018, 09:40
A first step could be removing all protections for parents of anchor babies. I say grant the child status of their strongest parent. (Citizenship, legal resident, green card or maybe just a pre approved tourist visa when they turn 18)
They can leave the baby with a government approved foster care facility or take them back home until they are 18 and the child can apply for citizenship AFTER they register with selective service AND pay any medical bills still outstanding.
Obviously doing away with all the "welfare entitlements" goes hand in hand to remove temptations for coming here.
Issues: (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Speaking of Constitution, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case! Timing couldn’t be better right before Veterans’ Day.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/the-american-legion-v-american-humanist-association/
Badger52
11-02-2018, 19:39
Speaking of Constitution, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case! Timing couldn’t be better right before Veterans’ Day.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/the-american-legion-v-american-humanist-association/I have my fingers x'd on this one. I hope the respondent in this case, along with the Freedom from Religion Foundation et al, get totally hung out to dry. Not because I'm particularly pious but because of the way these litigation-happy organizations cost money to small towns while injecting their world-view on citizens when they have complete disregard for local mores & traditions. Maybe they will set sufficient precedent that Smalltown, USA doesn't have to drown in legal fees (or surrender) just because they've had a manger scene down by the City Hall for 180 years.
BFYTW
WarriorDiplomat
11-02-2018, 20:36
Fixing things is hard work Sarge...and our reps are bone tired
Old Dog New Trick
11-02-2018, 21:34
Speaking of Constitution, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case! Timing couldn’t be better right before Veterans’ Day.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/the-american-legion-v-american-humanist-association/
I wish people would stop conflating Constitutional rights with private or public entities that have nothing to do with the government or a government authority.
If this cross is on private land or a memorial site on public property dedicated at the time to Christian warriors and it offends you then F_ck-off! Petition the city to remove it and if they tell you to F_ck-off then move out and draw fire. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state, no one is benefiting from this but the dead and those who remember them.
If the owner of a football team tells you to hold your helmet in your left hand and place your right hand over your heart while standing during the National Anthem and you decide not to you should be counseled once and then fired. If the coach decides to support you he should be fired too! This isn’t a democracy, it’s a private business. You have no fu_king Constitutional right to free speech dumbass!
If the President of the United States of America or the local city counsel-member tells you to stand and you want to kneel and flip them off...guess what, you can, although you may still be fired by your boss for violating company standards and policy. Same goes for tweeting or bookfacing your latest kill the cops rap video.
People are stupid and the education system has failed entire generations to understand fact and truth over hyperbole and feelings.
The fact that the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Congress doesn’t know or understand the Bill of Rights shows that we are in fact led by imbeciles and doofuses only intelligent enough to keep getting re-elected by more incompetent people.
Most aMEricans honestly believe this sentence is a Constitutional right: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Extra credit if you can find that in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.)
People are stupid and the education system has failed entire generations to understand fact and truth over hyperbole and feelings.
Actually, they succeeded since that was their plan all along. Destroy the family, belittle religion, demonize capitalism, promote free health care, demonize the founding fathers, unionize the workers, promote perversion, and control the education system to validate all of the above and make sure that they never learn the truth.
Old Dog New Trick
11-02-2018, 21:57
Actually, they succeeded since that was their plan all along. Destroy the family, belittle religion, demonize capitalism, promote free health care, demonize the founding fathers, unionize the workers, promote perversion, and control the education system to validate all of the above and make sure that they never learn the truth.
Sadly you are correct. :(
I wish people would stop conflating Constitutional rights with private or public entities that have nothing to do with the government or a government authority.
Apparently state tax dollars used to maintain the site are the contested issue.:confused:
Today, responsibility for the cross falls to a Maryland parks commission that took over ownership and maintenance of it in 1961 because of traffic safety concerns. The massive concrete structure could be dangerous to motorists if it were to fall or crumble.
The monument’s supporters said the Supreme Court has previously made clear that monuments, particularly longstanding ones, that incorporate religious symbolism to send a secular message don’t violate the Constitution. They said the Bladensburg monument’s history and context show that it falls into that category, that its message is a secular one of commemoration.
The D.C.-based American Humanist Association has led the challenge against the monument. The organization and three area residents sued Maryland officials in 2014.
They said that the cross “discriminates against patriotic soldiers who are not Christian, sending a callous message to non-Christians that Christians are worthy of veneration while they may as well be forgotten.” And, they point out that other nearby memorials are smaller and across the street from the cross.
https://wtop.com/prince-georges-county/2018/11/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-bladensburg-cross-memorial-case/
Golf1echo
11-03-2018, 09:03
Actually, they succeeded since that was their plan all along. Destroy the family, belittle religion, demonize capitalism, promote free health care, demonize the founding fathers, unionize the workers, promote perversion, and control the education system to validate all of the above and make sure that they never learn the truth.
So many people in the World regard this nation as one of the best, they want to come legally or otherwise and yet individuals within want to destroy it for their own agendas.
Most aMEricans honestly believe this sentence is a Constitutional right: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Extra credit if you can find that in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.)[/QUOTE]
I don't believe it is in the U.S. Constitution. But it is in the Declaration of Independence. :lifter:D
Badger52
11-04-2018, 21:13
...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Government Guarantee of Happiness and Everything You Ever Wanted, Ever.
Al Sharpton phoned in his correction...
Al Sharpton phoned in his correction...
Lol, and Elizabeth Warren translated that into smoke signals.
These articles might help (re: "anchor babies") these articles might help clarify matters:
<b>"Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor-Babies"</b>
by Ann Coulter Aug.4, 2010
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2010-08-04.html
<b>"From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship"</b>
March 30, 2006 The Heritage Foundation
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/feudalism-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship
<b>"Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance"</b>
by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005
http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html
<b>"What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means"</b>
by P.A. Madison The Federalist Blog, September 22nd, 2007
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
<b>"Babies Don’t Provide Anchors!"</b>
by Publius Huldah
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/anchor-babies/
Old Dog New Trick
11-07-2018, 03:39
Thanks for compiling that. Of course with Paul Ryan on his way out of the House and the loss of the House this is an even further up hill battle.
Trump will have to initiate the fuse with an EO or wait until 2020.
These articles might help (re: "anchor babies") these articles might help clarify matters:
Those did help, thank you. It seems that the crux of the matter is still whether "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." refers to one class of person or three.
To me, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is there to further clarify the first part of the sentence. On the other hand, it seems that language is as subject to personal interpretation as statistics are.