What if the right could win???

[Humorme]

I've heard it said that if a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble. Now, I'd like for you to remember that as I give you something to think about. BTW, this isn't about Dreamers, Trump, Obama or even directly about "illegal" aliens, so work with ,me here, pay close attention, and see if you can come up with an answer.

Let's pretend that Trump could win. He's built his wall and he's deported everybody he don't like. Now, let's apply a little common sense:

Suppose that you have this typical couple and we'll call them Hosea and Maria. They entered the United States in 2011 without papers. While they were here, they had four children born in the United States. Those four children are American citizens with birth certificates and a Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" as evidence of their citizenship.

Anyway, in 2018 Hosea and Maria will be forced out of the United States and they take their four children with them. Now, we fast forward to 2030 - and most of you will most likely still be alive. Hosea and Maria's children will be coming of age and may decide to come back to the United States. Now, bear in mind, there will be MILLIONS of people in the same predicament as Hosea and Maria's children.

These children cannot be kept out of the United States. They are citizens. So, they show up at the border without a family support system (we deported them), no education, no job skills, and no way to become self sufficient. They have no money and they are showing up by the MILLIONS! Now, what is your plan?

Let's take the usual "fixes" off the table. The generation of children BEFORE Maria and Hosea's kids were born here not forced out the United States and went on to serve in the military, work for the government, etc. Because their citizenship is not in doubt, neither will Maria and Hosea's children.... it's that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Then you have that little thing known as the ban on ex post facto laws. See Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. You cannot uncitizen those people. So, what, exactly, do you do with them? You cannot deport them. They're Americans.

According to the misapplication of the intended purpose of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to someone solely due to an illegal act by their POS parents, they will be let in. Since they have no skills, no education, and no way to be self sufficient, they'll expect the taxpayers to support their sorry asses. Don't do it. Nature has a way of dealing with those unwilling to do for themselves. If you don't eat, things will eventually occur.

There is no doubt that they will be let in. To do what? Live off welfare? Cause problems for you and your children / grandchildren?

Don't you think we should be discussing viable ways to address this now?

 

[Conservative65]

I've heard it said that if a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble. Now, I'd like for you to remember that as I give you something to think about. BTW, this isn't about Dreamers, Trump, Obama or even directly about "illegal" aliens, so work with ,me here, pay close attention, and see if you can come up with an answer.

Let's pretend that Trump could win. He's built his wall and he's deported everybody he don't like. Now, let's apply a little common sense:

Suppose that you have this typical couple and we'll call them Hosea and Maria. They entered the United States in 2011 without papers. While they were here, they had four children born in the United States. Those four children are American citizens with birth certificates and a Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" as evidence of their citizenship.

Anyway, in 2018 Hosea and Maria will be forced out of the United States and they take their four children with them. Now, we fast forward to 2030 - and most of you will most likely still be alive. Hosea and Maria's children will be coming of age and may decide to come back to the United States. Now, bear in mind, there will be MILLIONS of people in the same predicament as Hosea and Maria's children.

These children cannot be kept out of the United States. They are citizens. So, they show up at the border without a family support system (we deported them), no education, no job skills, and no way to become self sufficient. They have no money and they are showing up by the MILLIONS! Now, what is your plan?

Let's take the usual "fixes" off the table. The generation of children BEFORE Maria and Hosea's kids were born here not forced out the United States and went on to serve in the military, work for the government, etc. Because their citizenship is not in doubt, neither will Maria and Hosea's children.... it's that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Then you have that little thing known as the ban on ex post facto laws. See Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. You cannot uncitizen those people. So, what, exactly, do you do with them? You cannot deport them. They're Americans.

According to the misapplication of the intended purpose of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to someone solely due to an illegal act by their POS parents, they will be let in. Since they have no skills, no education, and no way to be self sufficient, they'll expect the taxpayers to support their sorry asses. Don't do it. Nature has a way of dealing with those unwilling to do for themselves. If you don't eat, things will eventually occur.

There is no doubt that they will be let in. To do what? Live off welfare? Cause problems for you and your children / grandchildren?

Don't you think we should be discussing viable ways to address this now?

I've addressed how it can be done. Don't reward the offspring with citizenship due solely to a criminal act by his/her parents. Thats not the intention of the 14th.

 

[Pete7469]

The Lautenberg Amendment is applied ex post facto.

Government can do anything it wants.

 

[BULLDOG]

Right. You don't want to do that part, so just ignore it.

Wrong. You don't want to apply the 14th based on it's intended purpose just one to suit your leftwing agenda. I have no problem applying it as it was INTENDED. It wasn't intended to reward the little shits popped out by some illegal that didn't have the decency to follow the laws about coming to the U.S.

Strange how you talk about following/ignoring things then want to reward someone due to a criminal act which, by the way, means they didn't follow the law.

Remind me which clause in the constitution appoint you, instead of the supreme court, as the interpreter of what the constitution means.

I don't have to interpret it. I know the history behind it. Seems you don't.

For you to believe what you believe, you have to interpret it to mean something those that wrote it didn't intend for it to do.

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

You don't, ****** boy.

Thank God that I don't have that responsibility. I don't always like, or agree with the SC, but those things are under their purview. Not mine, or yours.

 

[Humorme]

I've heard it said that if a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble. Now, I'd like for you to remember that as I give you something to think about. BTW, this isn't about Dreamers, Trump, Obama or even directly about "illegal" aliens, so work with ,me here, pay close attention, and see if you can come up with an answer.

Let's pretend that Trump could win. He's built his wall and he's deported everybody he don't like. Now, let's apply a little common sense:

Suppose that you have this typical couple and we'll call them Hosea and Maria. They entered the United States in 2011 without papers. While they were here, they had four children born in the United States. Those four children are American citizens with birth certificates and a Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" as evidence of their citizenship.

Anyway, in 2018 Hosea and Maria will be forced out of the United States and they take their four children with them. Now, we fast forward to 2030 - and most of you will most likely still be alive. Hosea and Maria's children will be coming of age and may decide to come back to the United States. Now, bear in mind, there will be MILLIONS of people in the same predicament as Hosea and Maria's children.

These children cannot be kept out of the United States. They are citizens. So, they show up at the border without a family support system (we deported them), no education, no job skills, and no way to become self sufficient. They have no money and they are showing up by the MILLIONS! Now, what is your plan?

Let's take the usual "fixes" off the table. The generation of children BEFORE Maria and Hosea's kids were born here not forced out the United States and went on to serve in the military, work for the government, etc. Because their citizenship is not in doubt, neither will Maria and Hosea's children.... it's that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Then you have that little thing known as the ban on ex post facto laws. See Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. You cannot uncitizen those people. So, what, exactly, do you do with them? You cannot deport them. They're Americans.

According to the misapplication of the intended purpose of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to someone solely due to an illegal act by their POS parents, they will be let in. Since they have no skills, no education, and no way to be self sufficient, they'll expect the taxpayers to support their sorry asses. Don't do it. Nature has a way of dealing with those unwilling to do for themselves. If you don't eat, things will eventually occur.

There is no doubt that they will be let in. To do what? Live off welfare? Cause problems for you and your children / grandchildren?

Don't you think we should be discussing viable ways to address this now?

I've addressed how it can be done. Don't reward the offspring with citizenship due solely to a criminal act by his/her parents. Thats not the intention of the 14th.

First, it does not matter what the original intent is to the 14th Amendment. If that is all there were to it, you would not have 40,000 plus federal, state, county and city ordinances, rules, statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, case decisions, and orders infringing upon Second Amendment guarantees.

Your solution would only work if this court interpreted it for future children. I've answered the balance of your objection in other responses on this thread. Would you like me to repeat them?

 

[Humorme]

The Lautenberg Amendment is applied ex post facto.

Government can do anything it wants.

To the extent that we allow it to happen, there is some truth to it. Immigration is different. Nobody is standing up against that sorry piece of legislation known as the Lautenberg Amendment.

On reversing the current application of the 14th Amendment, it would require two thirds of the House and Senate or two thirds of the state legislatures.

Show me half of Americans standing firm against Lautenberg and I will show you how to reverse it. Its a bit different. Lautenberg applies only to a current individual. It can never impact two, three or more generations back.

 

[cnelsen]

I guess you're too stupid to understand "misapplication of the intended purpose" along with the explanation. No wonder you believe POS kids of POS criminal parents should be rewarded for a crime.

Right. You don't want to do that part, so just ignore it.

Wrong. You don't want to apply the 14th based on it's intended purpose just one to suit your leftwing agenda. I have no problem applying it as it was INTENDED. It wasn't intended to reward the little shits popped out by some illegal that didn't have the decency to follow the laws about coming to the U.S.

Strange how you talk about following/ignoring things then want to reward someone due to a criminal act which, by the way, means they didn't follow the law.

Remind me which clause in the constitution appoint you, instead of the supreme court, as the interpreter of what the constitution means.

I don't have to interpret it. I know the history behind it. Seems you don't.

For you to believe what you believe, you have to interpret it to mean something those that wrote it didn't intend for it to do.

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

Just yo' nasty self down. Conservative65 is right. You are wrong. There has never been a Supreme Court ruling directly on the question of whether all Maria has to do is drag her pregnant ass across the Rio Grande in order to pop out a little American. The case always cited by the (((saboteurs))) is the Wong Kim Ark case from back in the 1800s, probably the worst ruling in the history of the Court (the dissent blows the opinion out of the water), but it doesn't address the case when someone is in the US illegally, anyway. In any case, as to legislative intent, Conservative65 is absolutely right.

 

[BULLDOG]

Right. You don't want to do that part, so just ignore it.

Wrong. You don't want to apply the 14th based on it's intended purpose just one to suit your leftwing agenda. I have no problem applying it as it was INTENDED. It wasn't intended to reward the little shits popped out by some illegal that didn't have the decency to follow the laws about coming to the U.S.

Strange how you talk about following/ignoring things then want to reward someone due to a criminal act which, by the way, means they didn't follow the law.

Remind me which clause in the constitution appoint you, instead of the supreme court, as the interpreter of what the constitution means.

I don't have to interpret it. I know the history behind it. Seems you don't.

For you to believe what you believe, you have to interpret it to mean something those that wrote it didn't intend for it to do.

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

Just yo' nasty self down. Conservative65 is right. You are wrong. There has never been a Supreme Court ruling directly on the question of whether all Maria has to do is drag her pregnant ass across the Rio Grande in order to pop out a little American. The case always cited by the (((saboteurs))) is the Wong Kim Ark case from back in the 1800s, probably the worst ruling in the history of the Court (the dissent blows the opinion out of the water), but it doesn't address the case when someone is in the US illegally, anyway. In any case, as to legislative intent, Conservative65 is absolutely right.

Then what are you doing here? You should be on your way to the supreme court to explain it all to them. It's their call, but I'm sure thy will be happy to sit down and discuss it with you, if you explain how far you have come

 

[cnelsen]

I've heard it said that if a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble. Now, I'd like for you to remember that as I give you something to think about. BTW, this isn't about Dreamers, Trump, Obama or even directly about "illegal" aliens, so work with ,me here, pay close attention, and see if you can come up with an answer.

Let's pretend that Trump could win. He's built his wall and he's deported everybody he don't like. Now, let's apply a little common sense:

Suppose that you have this typical couple and we'll call them Hosea and Maria. They entered the United States in 2011 without papers. While they were here, they had four children born in the United States. Those four children are American citizens with birth certificates and a Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" as evidence of their citizenship.

Anyway, in 2018 Hosea and Maria will be forced out of the United States and they take their four children with them. Now, we fast forward to 2030 - and most of you will most likely still be alive. Hosea and Maria's children will be coming of age and may decide to come back to the United States. Now, bear in mind, there will be MILLIONS of people in the same predicament as Hosea and Maria's children.

These children cannot be kept out of the United States. They are citizens. So, they show up at the border without a family support system (we deported them), no education, no job skills, and no way to become self sufficient. They have no money and they are showing up by the MILLIONS! Now, what is your plan?

Let's take the usual "fixes" off the table. The generation of children BEFORE Maria and Hosea's kids were born here not forced out the United States and went on to serve in the military, work for the government, etc. Because their citizenship is not in doubt, neither will Maria and Hosea's children.... it's that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Then you have that little thing known as the ban on ex post facto laws. See Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. You cannot uncitizen those people. So, what, exactly, do you do with them? You cannot deport them. They're Americans.

According to the misapplication of the intended purpose of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to someone solely due to an illegal act by their POS parents, they will be let in. Since they have no skills, no education, and no way to be self sufficient, they'll expect the taxpayers to support their sorry asses. Don't do it. Nature has a way of dealing with those unwilling to do for themselves. If you don't eat, things will eventually occur.

There is no doubt that they will be let in. To do what? Live off welfare? Cause problems for you and your children / grandchildren?

Don't you think we should be discussing viable ways to address this now?

I've addressed how it can be done. Don't reward the offspring with citizenship due solely to a criminal act by his/her parents. Thats not the intention of the 14th.

Trump could declare birthright citizenship ended tomorrow by executive order.

 

[cnelsen]

I had the impression that there are people seeking to do away with the automatic citizenship
for people born in the USA-----if the parents are not citizens. -----FROM NOW ON.....
its not true?

They can seek all they want, but this is civics 101. Under the 14th Amendment, if you were born here, you are a citizen. Again, the government cannot "uncitizen" those already here. And, even if that could be done (and trust me, it cannot) you still have that problem I described.

The Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws prohibits the kind of legislation you're describing. The only remedy you have is to amend the Constitution. That requires either two thirds of the U.S. House and Senate OR two thirds of the state legislatures. Most laws are being passed right now with 50 percent plus one vote. Where are you going to find these people to make up a two thirds majority?
You can't put a federal law on the books to do away with birth citizenship. It don't work that way.

But, I will tell you again:

A child born in the United States, say in 1998 or thereabouts (whose parents are undocumented) and graduated high school, served in the military and has a family here is an American citizen. The likelihood that ANY Court could now declare those MILLIONS of people to not be citizens is an impossibility.... and those children who will come back home are protected by the precedent those who have been here for 20 + years and are grown citizens.

Only eleven posts and already you've outed yourself as just another dishonest and ill-informed polemicist. The custom of birthright citizenship is just that--a custom. The relevant language in the 14th Amendment to which you refer states persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."

The debates in the Senate over passage of the amendment (the purpose of which was to guarantee citizenship to recently freed slaves) make it clear that the legislative intent was NOT to guarantee citizenship to the children born, for example, to pregnant Chinese women who time vacations to the US to coincide with their due dates, get picked up at LAX by a Chinese driver and whisked away to a birthing facility somewhere staffed by Chinese doctors, nurses, and so on, then after delivery, a Chinese lawyer presents the appropriate documents, the mother signs, then back to the airport and back to China with her very own US citizen in tow.

The express purpose of the insertion of the language "under the jurisdiction thereof" was to exclude that.

And you are delusional. Had you READ my posts, what you say is wholly irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you think the original intent of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution says. Here is the bottom line:

We have over two generations now of people who were born in the United States whose parents had no papers. Those children grew up, served in the military, graduated from college, and have children themselves walking in their footsteps. Like it or not, they aren't going anywhere. It would cost a TRILLION DOLLARS plus to figure out that cluster..****. That being the case, the scenario I described for you WILL happen because it would be impossible to uncitizen some people without going after generations of those people. And, let us not forget that what I describe is exactly what you'd have to do because of the equal protection clause.

I think you need some remedial civics training.

I can be just a certain of the future as you are. The treason lobby and alien-controlled media is going to continue to try to overturn the results of the last election which is going to trigger the declaration of martial law and such steps as are necessary to restore the Constitution to its intended place as the foundation of our Republic and not a club to beat us over the head with.

 

[cnelsen]

Wrong. You don't want to apply the 14th based on it's intended purpose just one to suit your leftwing agenda. I have no problem applying it as it was INTENDED. It wasn't intended to reward the little shits popped out by some illegal that didn't have the decency to follow the laws about coming to the U.S.

Strange how you talk about following/ignoring things then want to reward someone due to a criminal act which, by the way, means they didn't follow the law.

Remind me which clause in the constitution appoint you, instead of the supreme court, as the interpreter of what the constitution means.

I don't have to interpret it. I know the history behind it. Seems you don't.

For you to believe what you believe, you have to interpret it to mean something those that wrote it didn't intend for it to do.

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

Just yo' nasty self down. Conservative65 is right. You are wrong. There has never been a Supreme Court ruling directly on the question of whether all Maria has to do is drag her pregnant ass across the Rio Grande in order to pop out a little American. The case always cited by the (((saboteurs))) is the Wong Kim Ark case from back in the 1800s, probably the worst ruling in the history of the Court (the dissent blows the opinion out of the water), but it doesn't address the case when someone is in the US illegally, anyway. In any case, as to legislative intent, Conservative65 is absolutely right.

Then what are you doing here? You should be on your way to the supreme court to explain it all to them. It's their call, but I'm sure thy will be happy to sit down and discuss it with you, if you explain how far you have come

Actually, I have, and successfully had erroneous language changed in Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

 

[irosie91]

I had the impression that there are people seeking to do away with the automatic citizenship
for people born in the USA-----if the parents are not citizens. -----FROM NOW ON.....
its not true?

They can seek all they want, but this is civics 101. Under the 14th Amendment, if you were born here, you are a citizen. Again, the government cannot "uncitizen" those already here. And, even if that could be done (and trust me, it cannot) you still have that problem I described.

The Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws prohibits the kind of legislation you're describing. The only remedy you have is to amend the Constitution. That requires either two thirds of the U.S. House and Senate OR two thirds of the state legislatures. Most laws are being passed right now with 50 percent plus one vote. Where are you going to find these people to make up a two thirds majority?
You can't put a federal law on the books to do away with birth citizenship. It don't work that way.

But, I will tell you again:

A child born in the United States, say in 1998 or thereabouts (whose parents are undocumented) and graduated high school, served in the military and has a family here is an American citizen. The likelihood that ANY Court could now declare those MILLIONS of people to not be citizens is an impossibility.... and those children who will come back home are protected by the precedent those who have been here for 20 + years and are grown citizens.

Only eleven posts and already you've outed yourself as just another dishonest and ill-informed polemicist. The custom of birthright citizenship is just that--a custom. The relevant language in the 14th Amendment to which you refer states persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."

The debates in the Senate over passage of the amendment (the purpose of which was to guarantee citizenship to recently freed slaves) make it clear that the legislative intent was NOT to guarantee citizenship to the children born, for example, to pregnant Chinese women who time vacations to the US to coincide with their due dates, get picked up at LAX by a Chinese driver and whisked away to a birthing facility somewhere staffed by Chinese doctors, nurses, and so on, then after delivery, a Chinese lawyer presents the appropriate documents, the mother signs, then back to the airport and back to China with her very own US citizen in tow.

The express purpose of the insertion of the language "under the jurisdiction thereof" was to exclude that.

And you are delusional. Had you READ my posts, what you say is wholly irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you think the original intent of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution says. Here is the bottom line:

We have over two generations now of people who were born in the United States whose parents had no papers. Those children grew up, served in the military, graduated from college, and have children themselves walking in their footsteps. Like it or not, they aren't going anywhere. It would cost a TRILLION DOLLARS plus to figure out that cluster..****. That being the case, the scenario I described for you WILL happen because it would be impossible to uncitizen some people without going after generations of those people. And, let us not forget that what I describe is exactly what you'd have to do because of the equal protection clause.

I think you need some remedial civics training.

I can be just a certain of the future as you are. The treason lobby and alien-controlled media is going to continue to try to overturn the results of the last election which is going to trigger the declaration of martial law and such steps as are necessary to restore the Constitution to its intended place as the foundation of our Republic and not a club to beat us over the head with.

wanna bet?

 

[BULLDOG]

Remind me which clause in the constitution appoint you, instead of the supreme court, as the interpreter of what the constitution means.

I don't have to interpret it. I know the history behind it. Seems you don't.

For you to believe what you believe, you have to interpret it to mean something those that wrote it didn't intend for it to do.

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

Just yo' nasty self down. Conservative65 is right. You are wrong. There has never been a Supreme Court ruling directly on the question of whether all Maria has to do is drag her pregnant ass across the Rio Grande in order to pop out a little American. The case always cited by the (((saboteurs))) is the Wong Kim Ark case from back in the 1800s, probably the worst ruling in the history of the Court (the dissent blows the opinion out of the water), but it doesn't address the case when someone is in the US illegally, anyway. In any case, as to legislative intent, Conservative65 is absolutely right.

Then what are you doing here? You should be on your way to the supreme court to explain it all to them. It's their call, but I'm sure thy will be happy to sit down and discuss it with you, if you explain how far you have come

Actually, I have, and successfully had erroneous language changed in Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Of course you did. Everybody here has argued before the supreme court at one time or the other. I did it just before I flew on the Apollo 12 mission, and just after I ghost-wrote all those songs for the Beatles. Nobody on the internet would lie about something like that.

 

[cnelsen]

I don't have to interpret it. I know the history behind it. Seems you don't.

For you to believe what you believe, you have to interpret it to mean something those that wrote it didn't intend for it to do.

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

Just yo' nasty self down. Conservative65 is right. You are wrong. There has never been a Supreme Court ruling directly on the question of whether all Maria has to do is drag her pregnant ass across the Rio Grande in order to pop out a little American. The case always cited by the (((saboteurs))) is the Wong Kim Ark case from back in the 1800s, probably the worst ruling in the history of the Court (the dissent blows the opinion out of the water), but it doesn't address the case when someone is in the US illegally, anyway. In any case, as to legislative intent, Conservative65 is absolutely right.

Then what are you doing here? You should be on your way to the supreme court to explain it all to them. It's their call, but I'm sure thy will be happy to sit down and discuss it with you, if you explain how far you have come

Actually, I have, and successfully had erroneous language changed in Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Of course you did. Everybody here has argued before the supreme court at one time or the other. I did it just before I flew on the Apollo 12 mission, and just after I ghost-wrote all those songs for the Beatles. Nobody on the internet would lie about something like that.

Didn't say I argued before the court, tribewitch.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Those four children are American citizens with birth certificates and a Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" as evidence of their citizenship.

You are assuming the parents applied for and received SS numbers for the children. A Birth Certificate is not enough proof to prove US Citizenship, neither is a SS number, as SS numbers are issued to foreigners all the time.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

People are working on lots of things that will never happen. I wouldn't hold my breath for the constitutional amendment required to make that one happen

According to Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Case the Citizenship Clause is nothing more than Declaratory of existing law.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect.

and

No one doubts that the Amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of Congress to permit certain [p704] classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens.by birth, it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment.

Another Amendment may not be needed, simply changing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, may be all that is needed.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They can seek all they want, but this is civics 101. Under the 14th Amendment, if you were born here, you are a citizen.

Civics 101 tells you the 14th Citizenship Clause is merely declaratory of existing law, namely the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Change the 1866 CRA and the citizenship clause has now been limited to whomever Congress chooses.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

So you think we should just pretend the parts of the constitution that we don't like aren't there? I guess that sounds reasonable. It's the exact same way christians deal with parts of the bible they don't like.

Justice Gray of the US Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment is nothing more than declaratory of existing law, change the laws and you change the Amendment.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Unfortunately for you, the constitution and the supreme court disagree with you. Who has the final say in the matter, them or some internet tough guy who claims he has the authority to make that decision for the country?

What SCOTUS case is it you think agrees with you? WKA and Justice Gray states that to change the amendment Congress merely needs to change the law.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

And you are delusional. Had you READ my posts, what you say is wholly irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you think the original intent of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution says. Here is the bottom line:

And you cry "original intent" all the time with all your 2A claims. What? Now "original intent" doesn't matter? watafuknjoke