Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn'tNope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinionSimply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
It's like when the supreme rules unconstitutional gun laws constitutional anything that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens from having their weapon of choice is unconstitutional but old danny boy isn't bitching about that
Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn'tNope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinionSimply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
We don't have an Immigration clause, we have a Naturalization clause; all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass; and voting would be more secure. Yet, right wingers prefer to Create problems and then complain about those same problems.those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number" La Raza Sycophants "
* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *
Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.
GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;
Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...www.gao.gov
One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.
Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.thehill.com
Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn'tNope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinionSimply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
Due to a lack of morals to Faithfully execute our own supreme law of the land. How moral was the majority?and here you were just harping about having rights that laws said slaves didn't havethose illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number" La Raza Sycophants "
* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *
Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.
GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
So?
They still pay taxes and can't risk getting refunds.
There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass with a Naturalization clause because, all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes, including tax purposes." Typical Loathsome Idiocy "
* Pathetic Ignorance *
You are nothing more than a poorly informed , anti-racist racist , liar for thieves , reflective of disingenuous degeneracy exemplified by the entire left wing !Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
And ITIN filing only on themselves does not even cover the ssi doled out for the children of illegal migrants , who were unlawfully given citizenship , and based upon the income of their vagrant parents .
One of the most reliable sources of data concerning the federal income taxes of illegal immigrants comes from an IRS program that gives them “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers” or ITINs. These numbers are “issued regardless of an individual’s immigration status,” and they allow illegal immigrants and foreign investors to file tax returns without a Social Security number.Front Page Featured | MRCTV
www.cnsnews.com
In reality, the polar opposite is true. Federal government data shows that while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.
Why Undocumented Immigrants Choose to Pay Income Taxes | Daniel Kowalski
The IRS created a program in 1996 that allows non-citizens residing in the USA who are earning money to report their income. Most undocumented immigrants have decided it’s worth the risk to document themselves as law-abiding taxpayers so they will have good standing legally and socially if one...fee.org
Simply appealing to ignorance and being on the right wing, does not make you automatically, Right.Repeating the same incorrect information over and over again doesn't make it true. Blacks, especially black slaves were not eligible to become citizens until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Black Americans didn't get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 five years later.What facts are you claiming? Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominenslol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacyFallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussionsMore disingenuous white racist bullshit.no, it took taking slaves away from you democratsAll it took the whole and entire time, was morals.irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothingYou have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shitRight wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending themno they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusionalJim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.www.cbsnews.com
Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
- 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
“The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
Adolph Hitler
Untitled Document
- 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???- “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
- Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.- The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’
Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.www.breitbart.com
- 5. From the LATimes:
- “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusionalJim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
- Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.
Not all blacks were slaves.Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.They were supposed to. This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866Except you didn't have the facts son.Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominenslol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacyFallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussionsMore disingenuous white racist bullshit.no, it took taking slaves away from you democratsAll it took the whole and entire time, was morals.irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothingYou have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shitRight wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending themno they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusionalJim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
- 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
“The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
Adolph Hitler
Untitled Document
- 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???- “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
- Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.- The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’
Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
- 5. From the LATimes:
- “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusionalJim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
- Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
Levying War against the Union was Treason. Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us. You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
They have HomeDepot in Mexico now right wingers. What happened to free market Capitalism? Buy American ladders!There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
Are you so blatantly retarded as to not understand the entire purpose of a legal immigration system and that non jurisdiction migrants do not have permission to be in the us ?There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass with a Naturalization clause because, all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes, including tax purposes.
Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
Irrelevant irrelevant irrelevantFor the same reason we have the Expense of Government instead of being moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.and you are still wrong!Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinionSimply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
why was their a need for the 13th amendment 14th amendment?
The civil rights act of 1866?
Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain to avoid our Civil War?
wrong wrong wrongBefore 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.--https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.htmlNOPE WRONG AGAIN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral. Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth. The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866You have nothing but ignorance.I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lieI gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?not trueThe South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY
The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.www.history.com
Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.
FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.
OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage and free elections
just because a state abolished slavery did not give rights to slave and free blacksThe Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
fine buy all the ladders you wetbacks want to buy we'll trade you lead for themThey have HomeDepot in Mexico now right wingers. What happened to free market Capitalism? Buy American ladders!There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.Not all blacks were slaves.Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.They were supposed to. This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866Except you didn't have the facts son.Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominenslol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacyFallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussionsMore disingenuous white racist bullshit.no, it took taking slaves away from you democratsAll it took the whole and entire time, was morals.irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothingYou have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shitRight wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending themno they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusionalJim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
- 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
“The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
Adolph Hitler
Untitled Document
- 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???- “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
- Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.- The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’
Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
- 5. From the LATimes:
- “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusionalJim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
- Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.Levying War against the Union was Treason. Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us. You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
you're quoting the 14th amendment it wasn't ratified until 1868 the civil rights act of 1866 gave citizenship rights to blacksThe Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn'tNope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinionSimply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
