If Words Matter...(US Constitution) then Let’s Argue!

[Old Dog New Trick]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[PSM]

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

[Pete]

Loved that article

[tonyz]

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.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by tonyz

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.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by PSM

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.

[lindy]

[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!

[tonyz]

[QUOTE=lindy;647110]

Originally Posted by tonyz

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.

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by tonyz

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.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

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 !

[CW3SF]

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]

Originally Posted by Pete

Loved that article

Agree. (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]

Originally Posted by PSM

Here's what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say about it's intent:

Source article: The 14th Amendment

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.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

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.