Bill O’Reilly is full of crap regarding INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985)

[johnwk]

On this evening’s show (8/19/2015), Bill O’Reilly falsely suggested that INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985) was to determine if a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a legal citizen.

The truth is, the question being decided by the Supreme Court, in the case cited by Mr. O'Reilly was the Attorney General's discretionary power and had nothing to do with deciding whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a citizen upon birth. In other words, the case Bill O’Reilly cited has no bearing what-so-ever with regard to the question of whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil becomes a legal citizen upon birth.

Keep in mind, "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."___ Chief Justice Marshal, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)


In any event, Bill O’Reilly, where is the documentation from the debates of the 39th Congress to support the notion the 14th Amendment was intended to bestowed citizenship upon a child born to an alien on American soil who has entered our country illegally?

Put up or shut up Bill

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[candycorn]

​

 

[johnwk]

​

I wonder if someone on FoxNews will bring this up and tell him to give Andrea Tantaros an apology!


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Bill O’Reilly doubles down on his 14th Amendment delusion


This is absolutely incredible! Instead of admitting he was wrong about INS v. RIOS-PINEDA and stepping up like a real man and giving Andrea Tantaros an apology for bullying her while she was on his show, Bill O’Reilly decides to take his dog and pony show a step further and decided to bring two guests on his show this evening, John Yoo and David Rivkin, knowing they will get in bed with him and support his misrepresentations of the 14th Amendment, INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

In regard to INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, the case had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to a foreign national who enters our country illegally is guaranteed birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. The case was about an Attorney General's discretionary powers and not applicable to the current conversation.


In regard to United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the question before the Court was:

"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"

Those circumstances, addressed by the court, are entirely different than asking the court if citizenship is bestowed upon a child born to an alien who has entered our country illegally and gives birth on American soil who has no allegiance to the United States. The fact is, Wong is not applicable, nor is INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, and yet O”Reilly’s two bed partners to support O'Reilly ignore one of the great maxims of law expressed by Chief Justice Marshal, in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821):

"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."

If this does not establish that Bill O’Reilly is more interested in doubling down to give the illusion he is right, rather than working to establish the truth and facts regarding the qualifying words in the 14th Amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as expressed by those who actually debated the issue during the 39th Congress, then nothing will convince his audience of the blowhard that he is. Bringing two sympathetic guests on his show at the same time, one of whom is a “law professor” as Obama was often referred to, is an indication of O’Reilly’s petulant and arrogant demeanor. FoxNews needs to call Bill O’Reilly on the carpet for this one!

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[BULLDOG]

Not the first time Billo spouted lying crap, and won't be the last.

 

[bodecea]

Dup

 

[bodecea]

​

I wonder if someone on FoxNews will bring this up and tell him to give Andrea Tantaros an apology!


JWK

For screaming at her and lying to her in order to pretend he was right?