Constitutional Question

[Wry Catcher]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

The original intent of the 14th was for the freed slaves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

The original intent of the 14th was for the freed slaves.

Wherein the language of the amendment do you find such an intent? If not in the amendment, where did you learn that it was intended exclusively for freed slaves?
Does the language mean only free slaves have the rights named? Does it suggest persons in the 21st century are denied such rights?

 

[antagon]

due process is applicable to every act of justice in the country. that's the statement. it is not limited to citizens.

 

[ConHog]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

The original intent of the 14th was for the freed slaves.

Wherein the language of the amendment do you find such an intent? If not in the amendment, where did you learn that it was intended exclusively for freed slaves?
Does the language mean only free slaves have the rights named? Does it suggest persons in the 21st century are denied such rights?

IMO the proof that the 14th referenced the freed slaves re the citizenship clause lies in the fact that it is surrounded by the 13th and 15th. otherwise that's a HUGE coincidence.

 

[ConHog]

due process is applicable to every act of justice in the country. that's the statement. it is not limited to citizens.

incorrect, perhaps you haven't read the Patriot Act?

 

[antagon]

due process is applicable to every act of justice in the country. that's the statement. it is not limited to citizens.

incorrect, perhaps you haven't read the Patriot Act?

sorry. the 14th only applies to states.

i haven't read the entire patriot act.

 

[Flopper]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?

Because the writers are human and they make mistakes. Maybe this is heresy to some, but it's true. Whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, or any other such document there are parts that are just not worded correctly and are confusing and unclear. For the Bible we have ministers and priests to interpret and for the Constitution we have the Supreme Court.

 

[ConHog]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?

Because the writers are human and they make mistakes. Maybe this is heresy to some, but it's true. Whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, or any other such document there are parts that are just not worded correctly and are confusing and unclear. For the Bible we have ministers and priests to interpret and for the Constitution we have the Supreme Court.

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The original intent of the 14th was for the freed slaves.

Wherein the language of the amendment do you find such an intent? If not in the amendment, where did you learn that it was intended exclusively for freed slaves?
Does the language mean only free slaves have the rights named? Does it suggest persons in the 21st century are denied such rights?

IMO the proof that the 14th referenced the freed slaves re the citizenship clause lies in the fact that it is surrounded by the 13th and 15th. otherwise that's a HUGE coincidence.

It maybe a coincidence, huge or otherwise. But if I'm not mistaken, all three amendments were passed by three different Congresses, and ratified by different state legislatures. Still, if that was the intent, wouldn't the 14th use similar language rather than the superlative "All Persons"? For example, all former slaves or involuntary servents in the preceding amendment; or to paraphrase the 15th the rights of citizens (CITIZENS, again) of the United States to vote shall not denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any State on account of race, color or pervious conditon of servitude.

Were freed slaves automatically citizens of the U.S.? If so, by what procedure?

 

[hortysir]

By the procedure of being freed?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

the amendment has more than one clause. some of it deals with those traitorous bastards of the Confederacy.

and if the amendment was meant to be solely for slaves, it would say so. it doesn't.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?

Because the writers are human and they make mistakes. Maybe this is heresy to some, but it's true. Whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, or any other such document there are parts that are just not worded correctly and are confusing and unclear. For the Bible we have ministers and priests to interpret and for the Constitution we have the Supreme Court.

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

no mistakes in the documents. the only mistakes are in the readings of it.

the 14th dealt with the traitorous bastards of the Confederacy. and the authors knew about children born here of non citizens. if it were only for slaves they would have written it that way. they didn't.

that is why the fear brokers are talking about changing the amendment. they want to make babies criminals.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

as with most things the fear brokers and the wingnuts peddle, much is left out. Like the fact that all of the Constitution has been made up of compromises everyone agreed they would later honor.

Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[SFC Ollie]

An illegal gets their "due process". They are not simply picked up and escorted to the border but I believe they have a deportation hearing before a judge first. Though I could be wrong..........

 

[jillian]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

because it was intended that the rights cotained in the constitution be granted to all people... including those who were not citizens. for example, if someone is here on a visa, and they get arrested, they are still entitled to due process, etc., though due process may vary depending upon what interests were at stake.

 

[goldcatt]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

The difference in the language is because Section 1 of the Fourteenth is separated into two separate and distinct Clauses.

The first deals with citizenship, and refers to citizens.

The second is a mirror image of the Federal Due Process Clause included in the 5th and is treated the same way, but is applied to the States.

Both are incidential to the Civil War. However, it is not and was never intended to be limited to freed slaves. If it were, it would certainly say so. Section 1, both Clause 1 and Clause 2 (particularly when read together with the Comity Clause in Article 4 Section 2), addresses the lack of cohesion among the States and the power of the States over the rights of the people in general.

The rest of the sections deal with those who cast their lot with the Confederacy.

 

[rightwinger]

The original intent of the 14th was for the freed slaves.

Wherein the language of the amendment do you find such an intent? If not in the amendment, where did you learn that it was intended exclusively for freed slaves?
Does the language mean only free slaves have the rights named? Does it suggest persons in the 21st century are denied such rights?

IMO the proof that the 14th referenced the freed slaves re the citizenship clause lies in the fact that it is surrounded by the 13th and 15th. otherwise that's a HUGE coincidence.

Did the 14th amendment apply to Indians yet? Or were they not considered persons?

 

[antagon]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?

Because the writers are human and they make mistakes. Maybe this is heresy to some, but it's true. Whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, or any other such document there are parts that are just not worded correctly and are confusing and unclear. For the Bible we have ministers and priests to interpret and for the Constitution we have the Supreme Court.

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

it is a mistake to think that due process/equal protection was intended as something only extended to citizens. obstinacy maybe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

the amendment has more than one clause. some of it deals with those traitorous bastards of the Confederacy.

and if the amendment was meant to be solely for slaves, it would say so. it doesn't.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Go to hell son of a bitch