Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[sangha]

No asumption thats exactly what it means.

No, "persons" is a legal term which means "any human that has been born"

However shithead...the Constitution is written for Citizens and a guide to self governance...how can you include non-citizens into the mix?

No, the constitution was not written for citizens is not a guide to self-governance.

And I didn't include non-citizens into the mix . The constitution protects the rights of non-citizens

 

[The T]

The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.

And the right opposed the 13th, 19th, 24th and the 26th

They support making English the official language, and prohibiting gay marriage, both of which restricts peoples' rights

http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=2968148

And still shanghaied has yet to prove the assertion

It seems that the newest wingnut ploy is to ignore evidence, and then claim no evidence has been posted.

Notice how the Tbagger won't identify any error in my post

If you mean LAW and precident? Then guess what idiot? The Law was never challanged nor was the precident. Still doesn't make it correct.

 

[sangha]

art 4, 5, and 14 all speak of persons in one form or another
but not to non-citizens specifically
and it would be assumed that the "persons" would be at least legal residents

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

since at the time immigration laws were very lax or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being her illegally

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What part of the U.S. Constitution gives rights to non U.S. citizens? You haven't proven that non U.S. Citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights, how can I disprove something that you haven't proven?

art 4, 5, and 14 all speak of persons in one form or another
but not to non-citizens specifically
and it would be assumed that the "persons" would be at least legal residents

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

since at the time immigration laws were very lax or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being her illegally

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

Really you're swiming in the river of denial and have become delusional.

 

[The T]

The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.

And the right opposed the 13th, 19th, 24th and the 26th

They support making English the official language, and prohibiting gay marriage, both of which restricts peoples' rights

http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=2968148

And still shanghaied has yet to prove the assertion

It seems that the newest wingnut ploy is to ignore evidence, and then claim no evidence has been posted.

Notice how the Tbagger won't identify any error in my post

Read on fuckstick. I did just that. Are you fucking blind or intellectually challanged?

 

[DiveCon]

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

since at the time immigration laws were very lax or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being her illegally

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

"hundreds"
now who is making shit up
LOL

 

[DiveCon]

art 4, 5, and 14 all speak of persons in one form or another
but not to non-citizens specifically
and it would be assumed that the "persons" would be at least legal residents

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

yes, no doubt he is taking the orange and leaving off the green

 

[sangha]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=2968148

And still shanghaied has yet to prove the assertion

It seems that the newest wingnut ploy is to ignore evidence, and then claim no evidence has been posted.

Notice how the Tbagger won't identify any error in my post

If you mean LAW and precident? Then guess what idiot? The Law was never challanged nor was the precident. Still doesn't make it correct.

No, you moron, I don't mean LAW and precedent?

You claim I haven't backed up my claim when challenged, but you haven't posted any challenge for me to respond to.

 

[sangha]

art 4, 5, and 14 all speak of persons in one form or another
but not to non-citizens specifically
and it would be assumed that the "persons" would be at least legal residents

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

No, that is not the basis of my argument.

 

[sangha]

since at the time immigration laws were very lax or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being her illegally

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

Really you're swiming in the river of denial and have become delusional.

Once again, the wingnut has no evidence to post, and no argument to make.

Just childish personal attacks. This wingnut has been rendered incapable of supporting his claims

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

Really you're swiming in the river of denial and have become delusional.

Once again, the wingnut has no evidence to post, and no argument to make.

Just childish personal attacks. This wingnut has been rendered incapable of supporting his claims

Still waiting on that amendment you used if the 14th is not the bvasis of your argument.

 

[sangha]

since at the time immigration laws were very lax or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being her illegally

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

"hundreds"
now who is making shit up
LOL

I see this wingnut has no idea what Common Law is

Here comes another of those lectures you don't need (but you do)

Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "common law" originally derives from after the Norman Conquest. The "common law" was the law that emerged as "common" throughout the realm, as the king's judges imposed a unified common law throughout England. The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those that existed historically in societies where precedent and custom played a role in the legal process, including Germanic law.[29]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Norman Conquest occurred at least several centuries ago.

 

[The T]

since at the time immigration laws were very lax or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being her illegally

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy

"hundreds"
now who is making shit up
LOL

Nevermind that when it was written they were speaking to citizens...

 

[The T]

It seems that the newest wingnut ploy is to ignore evidence, and then claim no evidence has been posted.

Notice how the Tbagger won't identify any error in my post

If you mean LAW and precident? Then guess what idiot? The Law was never challanged nor was the precident. Still doesn't make it correct.

No, you moron, I don't mean LAW and precedent?

You claim I haven't backed up my claim when challenged, but you haven't posted any challenge for me to respond to.

Hopeless. You haven't. That's just it. Only a claim with no link to anything. And here we are back to square one. Press on. I haven't got time for shitheads that don't know history...and that means you.

 

[sangha]

Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally

Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

yes, no doubt he is taking the orange and leaving off the green

I didn't pay any attention to what colors he used in quoting the Constitution because he didn't ask about that He asked Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.


The 14th Amend is not the basis of my argument. The Constitution. The part that was colored by does, however, prove that I'm right

Right there it says the constitution protects the rights of non-citizens.

 

[sangha]

Really you're swiming in the river of denial and have become delusional.

Once again, the wingnut has no evidence to post, and no argument to make.

Just childish personal attacks. This wingnut has been rendered incapable of supporting his claims

Still waiting on that amendment you used if the 14th is not the bvasis of your argument.

My argument is not based on any one amendment. It's based on the Constitution, which protects the rights of non-citizens in many places.

Since you just posted it, you could start with Art I Sec 1

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once again, the wingnut has no evidence to post, and no argument to make.

Just childish personal attacks. This wingnut has been rendered incapable of supporting his claims

Still waiting on that amendment you used if the 14th is not the bvasis of your argument.

My argument is not based on any one amendment. It's based on the Constitution, which protects the rights of non-citizens in many places.

Since you just posted it, you could start with Art I Sec 1

The Constitution and the bill of rights are two seperate items The bill of rights protects the right of American citizens. The Constitution tell's the government what it can and cannot not do.

 

[DiveCon]

Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

yes, no doubt he is taking the orange and leaving off the green

I didn't pay any attention to what colors he used in quoting the Constitution because he didn't ask about that He asked Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.


The 14th Amend is not the basis of my argument. The Constitution. The part that was colored by does, however, prove that I'm right

Right there it says the constitution protects the rights of non-citizens.

HE didnt use the colors
I did

 

[sangha]

Still waiting on that amendment you used if the 14th is not the bvasis of your argument.

My argument is not based on any one amendment. It's based on the Constitution, which protects the rights of non-citizens in many places.

Since you just posted it, you could start with Art I Sec 1

The Constitution and the bill of rights are two seperate items The bill of rights protects the right of American citizens. The Constitution tell's the government what it can and cannot not do.

Umm, the BoR is a part of the Constitution; it is not a seperate item, the BoR protects the rights of non-citizens and the constitution does more than tell the govt what it can and can't do.