14 states may target birthright citizenship

[zzzz]

When exactly did the matter become clear? Why? How? What would you describe about how the matter was handled before the epiphany?

In Afroyim v. Rusk, a five-to-four majority of the US Supreme Court overruled the 1958 decision permitting expatriation for voting in a foreign election and announced a constitutional rule against all but purely voluntary renunciation of United States citizenship. The majority ruled that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally vested citizenship in every person “born or naturalized in the United States” and that Congress was powerless to take that citizenship away.

Like the 5-4 remedy decision in Bush v Gore, this was a politically motivated vote that fell along party lines. As such, it isn't a REAL decision.

So Roe v Wade is not a real decision either? All of it is politically motivated but every decision is real and effects us all.

Don't get me wrong here, I do think there is a problem with the amendment and should be clarified by another amendment. There is a process, a rule of law here, and we need to follow that process. If we circumvent the law here then none of our laws are worth anything and the bricks in our countries foundation start to crumble.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Afroyim v. Rusk, a five-to-four majority of the US Supreme Court overruled the 1958 decision permitting expatriation for voting in a foreign election and announced a constitutional rule against all but purely voluntary renunciation of United States citizenship. The majority ruled that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally vested citizenship in every person “born or naturalized in the United States” and that Congress was powerless to take that citizenship away.

Like the 5-4 remedy decision in Bush v Gore, this was a politically motivated vote that fell along party lines. As such, it isn't a REAL decision.

So Roe v Wade is not a real decision either?

Ask the people that believe what I just posted re: Bush v Gore.
-They're- the experts :shrug:

 

[Sallow]

No need to repeal the 14th amendment, or to challenge it. Simply pass a new amendment doing away with citizenship for children of illegals. There would be enough votes for it if the idiots in Washington don't play politics with it.

Doubtful.

It flies in the face of the immigrant tradition of this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need to repeal the 14th amendment, or to challenge it. Simply pass a new amendment doing away with citizenship for children of illegals. There would be enough votes for it if the idiots in Washington don't play politics with it.

Doubtful.
It flies in the face of the immigrant tradition of this country.

Nowhwre near so much as ILLEGAL immigration does.

 

[Big Fitz]

States lack the jurisdiction to repeal the 14th amendment

woot! Nullification crisis!

 

[Old Rocks]

This is key....

"Pearce argues that the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed U.S. slaves, and that it was never meant to apply to the children of foreigners."

This needs to be figured out 1st.... b/c repealing the ammendment in my opinion is not necessary. Lets just interpret it properly.

The states do not interpret the intent, the courts do

I dont give a shit.... it just needs to be done. PERIOD!

This entire arguement is just plain stupid. A 3rd grader can read the 14th ammendment and understand what it was there for

Ah yes, the party of the Constitution, as long as it does not disagree with their prejudices.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The states do not interpret the intent, the courts do

I dont give a shit.... it just needs to be done. PERIOD!

This entire arguement is just plain stupid. A 3rd grader can read the 14th ammendment and understand what it was there for

Ah yes, the party of the Constitution, as long as it does not disagree with their prejudices.

Wanting to add an amendment is not against the constitution, Neither is wanting to stop illegal immigration.

 

[goldcatt]

I dont give a shit.... it just needs to be done. PERIOD!

This entire arguement is just plain stupid. A 3rd grader can read the 14th ammendment and understand what it was there for

Ah yes, the party of the Constitution, as long as it does not disagree with their prejudices.

Wanting to add an amendment is not against the constitution, Neither is wanting to stop illegal immigration.

Then by all means, get the support together and git 'er done.

Starting in Congress is easier than starting with the States. So start bombarding them.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I would love to see a politician, any politician, reach down and find the nads to use the tools they were given in order to create actual policy instead of play BS partisan games.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Ah yes, the party of the Constitution, as long as it does not disagree with their prejudices.

Wanting to add an amendment is not against the constitution, Neither is wanting to stop illegal immigration.

Then by all means, get the support together and git 'er done.

Starting in Congress is easier than starting with the States. So start bombarding them.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I would love to see a politician, any politician, reach down and find the nads to use the tools they were given in order to create actual policy instead of play BS partisan games.

Wouldn't we all. But I'm still fighting to get one line in a healthcare bill fixed that cut my wife off of all benefits for 6 months because of poor wording in the law.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No state can deny anyone citizenship even if they were a born to non-citizens. The ammendment and thereby the constitution is clear on this matter. A state can pass a referendum if they so choose but it is non-binding. The only way to clear this up is through another ammendment. If there are 15 states wanting this, they need another 19 states and they can get an amendment or even call for a constitutional convention.

actually it would take 23 more states for a total of 38 needed to ratify any Amendment to the US Constitution. And you are correct. Under the "full faith and credit" clause, a citizen of one state is a citizen of the other 49 states. Same as a couple married in one state is deemed married in the other 49 states.
That however is not the point.
The issue is the framers never anticipated people charging across the border illegally and with impunity to give birth to children on order to take advantage of our more than charitable welfare and social programs.
For our very survival as a nation, this loophole in the 14th Amendment MUST be closed.

 

[Avatar4321]

States dont have the power here. It's a federal issue and must be done through Constitutional Amendment.

 

[SFC Ollie]

States dont have the power here. It's a federal issue and must be done through Constitutional Amendment.

This is true, but the states even passing non-binding resolutions can get the ball rolling in Washington.

 

[thereisnospoon]

States lack the jurisdiction to repeal the 14th amendment

Incorrect....
Article V creates a two-stage process for amending the Constitution: proposal and ratification.

• An amendment can be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or…

• by two-thirds of state legislatures requesting Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

• An amendment can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states.



Read more: Answers.com - What are two formal methods for adding amendments to the constitution.
Please pay attention in class. There will be quizzes on classroom material

 

[goldcatt]

States dont have the power here. It's a federal issue and must be done through Constitutional Amendment.

This is true, but the states even passing non-binding resolutions can get the ball rolling in Washington.

Washington can and will ignore non-binding resolutions. And legislation will only be asking for millions in taxpayer funds to get thrown away defending constitutional challenges - and unsuccessfully, too. The amendment process is the only option that will get results.

 

[thereisnospoon]

On the contrary - the states can amend the constituion in whatever way they might choose.

This is key....

"Pearce argues that the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed U.S. slaves, and that it was never meant to apply to the children of foreigners."

This needs to be figured out 1st.... b/c repealing the ammendment in my opinion is not necessary. Lets just interpret it properly.

The states do not interpret the intent, the courts do

Correct. And as such, the US Supreme Court can in fact interpret that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT intend to grant citizenship to children born of foreign nationals or non registered aliens.

This could be the purpose served by those states challenging the law.
These state legislatures are developing a case to bring to the SCOTUS..
This may just work.
Why are you so in favor of allowing children of illegals citizen rights? What is your interest on this issue?

 

[shintao]

States dont have the power here. It's a federal issue and must be done through Constitutional Amendment.

This is true, but the states even passing non-binding resolutions can get the ball rolling in Washington.

Doesn't it take a Constitutional Convention to open up the Constitution? And that requires so many states approval?

 

[SFC Ollie]

States dont have the power here. It's a federal issue and must be done through Constitutional Amendment.

This is true, but the states even passing non-binding resolutions can get the ball rolling in Washington.

Doesn't it take a Constitutional Convention to open up the Constitution? And that requires so many states approval?

Congress may start a constitutional amendment. In fact the congressional route is probably the easiest of the 2.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In Afroyim v. Rusk, a five-to-four majority of the US Supreme Court overruled the 1958 decision permitting expatriation for voting in a foreign election and announced a constitutional rule against all but purely voluntary renunciation of United States citizenship. The majority ruled that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally vested citizenship in every person “born or naturalized in the United States” and that Congress was powerless to take that citizenship away.

Like the 5-4 remedy decision in Bush v Gore, this was a politically motivated vote that fell along party lines. As such, it isn't a REAL decision.

So Roe v Wade is not a real decision either? All of it is politically motivated but every decision is real and effects us all.

Don't get me wrong here, I do think there is a problem with the amendment and should be clarified by another amendment. There is a process, a rule of law here, and we need to follow that process. If we circumvent the law here then none of our laws are worth anything and the bricks in our countries foundation start to crumble.

The majority opinion in Roe was based on a false pretense and poor interpretation by the Court. In Roe, the majoirty ruled that a constitutional right to privacy existed and thus reproductive freedom was a private matter for the plaintiff.
In the opinion of many legal and Constitutional scholars, Roe violates the 10th amendment's state's rights clause and also creates a provision that does not appear in the Constitution. That being a "right to privacy"...The Court misinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process clause in that due process includes a right to privacy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

one wonders how one gets a drivers license or a passport without a birth certificate....least of all become president....

You know that Obama has released (the "COLB") legal proof of citizenship, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

States dont have the power here. It's a federal issue and must be done through Constitutional Amendment.

Are you implying thet States cannot begin and follow through on creating a US Constitutional Amendment?
Please elaborate.
You are forgetting one important fact. If a case challenging the birthright clause in the 14th Amendment is brought to the SCOTUS, the justices certainly may decide the Amendment does not allow for birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
This is real!