Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Boss]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

It doesn't say we're a fiefdom or kingdom where alien babies determine their own citizenship by being born on US soil. It doesn't say illegal alien parents get to decide citizenship based on the geographical location they decide to deliver their rug rat. It doesn't say a stacked liberal nutjob court gets to rewrite the Constitution and decide who is a citizen. And it doesn't say some half-wit moron on a message board gets to dictate who he thinks ought to get citizenship.

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

 

[Clementine]

If parents are here illegally, the baby should not be considered a US citizen even if born here. The baby should be considered born on foreign land, but a citizen of the parent's or the mother's home country.

Some do argue that babies born to people here illegally are not covered in the constitution. That was meant for the slaves who were brought here against their will and finally freed. It was not for people who disobeyed our immigration laws and entered illegally, often with the intention of having an anchor baby to access our welfare system.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

It doesn't say we're a fiefdom or kingdom where alien babies determine their own citizenship by being born on US soil. It doesn't say illegal alien parents get to decide citizenship based on the geographical location they decide to deliver their rug rat. It doesn't say a stacked liberal nutjob court gets to rewrite the Constitution and decide who is a citizen. And it doesn't say some half-wit moron on a message board gets to dictate who he thinks ought to get citizenship.

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

You simply can't read and understand! This is what I wrote in the last sentence:
"The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day." That is an example of your comprehension skills to reverse the meaning of a simple sentence.

I EXPLAINED/WROTE THAT TO YOU...REMEMBER NOW ?

US v. Wong didn't concern itself with Naturalization, but rather birthright citizenship! Clause 4 of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Sec 8 does directly deal with Naturalization and Naturalization has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. FOCUS ON THE FACT THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND NOT NATURALIZATION!!!! STAY ON TOPIC!

Can you try to grasp the idea that the universe doesn't revolve around you feeble and erroneous understanding of those concepts?

And BTW, any statute Congress passes and becomes law can come under judicial review all the way up the line. Congress doesn't have the final word on laws, so quit implying that is the case. If you don't understand that, read Federalist #78. Hamilton did a fine job of explaining the Article III Courts functions and authority.

 

[Boss]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Let's read it again so you clearly understand...
[The Congress (not anchor babies, illegal alien parents or courts) shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule (aka: laws) of Naturalization (aka:citizenship).

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

 

[paperview]

^ Thick as a brick.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Let's read it again so you clearly understand...
[The Congress (not anchor babies, illegal alien parents or courts) shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule (aka: laws) of Naturalization (aka:citizenship).

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

That settles it...You are an official IDIOT!

 

[Camp]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Let's read it again so you clearly understand...
[The Congress (not anchor babies, illegal alien parents or courts) shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule (aka: laws) of Naturalization (aka:citizenship).

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

That settles it...You are an official IDIOT!

Often times cult followers appear to be idiots. It is a symptom of the dependence of belief in the cult leader and his teachings. Cult followers depend on their leader being always right and all knowing. They allow the leader to make illogical and irrational judgments and defend the illogical and irrational with stubborn adherence to the point of delusion.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Let's read it again so you clearly understand...
[The Congress (not anchor babies, illegal alien parents or courts) shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule (aka: laws) of Naturalization (aka:citizenship).

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

That settles it...You are an official IDIOT!

Often times cult followers appear to be idiots. It is a symptom of the dependence of belief in the cult leader and his teachings. Cult followers depend on their leader being always right and all knowing. They allow the leader to make illogical and irrational judgments and defend the illogical and irrational with stubborn adherence to the point of delusion.

Well he sure as hell is deluded!

 

[Boss]

All I've done is cite the words of the Constitution.

But thanks for confirming you believe the Constitution is a steaming load of cult idiocy.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

All I've done is cite the words of the Constitution.

But thanks for confirming you believe the Constitution is a steaming load of cult idiocy.

That's it EXACTLY! All you've,"...done is cite the words of the Constitution" without understanding what the hell you were talking about!

 

[paddymurphy]

All I've done is cite the words of the Constitution.

But thanks for confirming you believe the Constitution is a steaming load of cult idiocy.

Cite them? Yes. Have the first clue what they mean? No. You are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born one. (Here is a tip. A naturalized citizen is a person not born here who becomes a citizen according to the process congress established pursuant to their enumerated power over naturalization set out in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, while a natural born one, according to the 14th Amendment, is one born here and subject to our jurisdiction. In other words, anyone born here whose were parents not diplomats or invading soldiers)

 

[Boss]

All I've done is cite the words of the Constitution.

But thanks for confirming you believe the Constitution is a steaming load of cult idiocy.

Cite them? Yes. Have the first clue what they mean? No. You are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born one. (Here is a tip. A naturalized citizen is a person not born here who becomes a citizen according to the process congress established pursuant to their enumerated power over naturalization set out in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, while a natural born one, according to the 14th Amendment, is one born here and subject to our jurisdiction. In other words, anyone born here whose were parents not diplomats or invading soldiers)

Again, you are misinterpreting the 14th. There is absolutely nothing in the 14th about "natural born citizens." The "subject to jurisdiction" requirement is not about "geographical" jurisdiction-- else you would NOT be a US citizen if you were born to citizen parents in a foreign country. It would have also meant Native Americans were included which we know they were not. And IF there is some moronic misinterpretation of the 14th (as we see here), the 14th has a built in safety valve... Section 5 explicitly gives Congress final say on all aspects of the amendment. So, I m terribly sorry, the 14th doesn't allow for liberals and their activist court to redefine it.

 

[paddymurphy]

All I've done is cite the words of the Constitution.

But thanks for confirming you believe the Constitution is a steaming load of cult idiocy.

Cite them? Yes. Have the first clue what they mean? No. You are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born one. (Here is a tip. A naturalized citizen is a person not born here who becomes a citizen according to the process congress established pursuant to their enumerated power over naturalization set out in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, while a natural born one, according to the 14th Amendment, is one born here and subject to our jurisdiction. In other words, anyone born here whose were parents not diplomats or invading soldiers)

Again, you are misinterpreting the 14th. There is absolutely nothing in the 14th about "natural born citizens." The "subject to jurisdiction" requirement is not about "geographical" jurisdiction-- else you would NOT be a US citizen if you were born to citizen parents in a foreign country. It would have also meant Native Americans were included which we know they were not. And IF there is some moronic misinterpretation of the 14th (as we see here), the 14th has a built in safety valve... Section 5 explicitly gives Congress final say on all aspects of the amendment. So, I m terribly sorry, the 14th doesn't allow for liberals and their activist court to redefine it.

You continue to ignore reality. During the three days you have shown us what a fucking moron you are about 2500 new American citizens were born to persons not legally in the U.S.

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

 

[paddymurphy]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

 

[Unkotare]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry......

What law school did you say you graduated from?

 

[Camp]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry......

What law school did you say you graduated from?

It was the one founded by President Camacho and Frito Bendejo.

 

[paddymurphy]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry......

What law school did you say you graduated from?

I minored in American History at the University of Alabama. It doesn't require a law degree to understand the history of the Constitution and 14th Amendment.