Has the 14th Amendments “Equal Protection Clause” Been Misinterpreted by the Courts?

[Wayne Adams]

Do you think the Constitution is a social contract?

It must be. It is our form of social-ism.

And so, finally I get somewhat of an answer. Did you, by any chance, vote for Bernie Sanders?

Social-ism must start with the social contract that defines it. We have a Constitution.

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract. Ours defines a Republican form of Government.

So, if you are now an advocate of a Republican Form of Government, that means you must have a handle on the limitations on government. In the Republic as envisioned by the founders, the Constitution was ratified for "Ourselves (meaning the founders) and our posterity" and posterity is the families - offspring of the founders, right?

 

[danielpalos]

It must be. It is our form of social-ism.

And so, finally I get somewhat of an answer. Did you, by any chance, vote for Bernie Sanders?

Social-ism must start with the social contract that defines it. We have a Constitution.

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract. Ours defines a Republican form of Government.

So, if you are now an advocate of a Republican Form of Government, that means you must have a handle on the limitations on government. In the Republic as envisioned by the founders, the Constitution was ratified for "Ourselves (meaning the founders) and our posterity" and posterity is the families - offspring of the founders, right?

this is our mission statement:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[dblack]

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract.

Do you think the Constitution is a social contract?

It must be. It is our form of social-ism.

And so, finally I get somewhat of an answer. Did you, by any chance, vote for Bernie Sanders?

Social-ism must start with the social contract that defines it. We have a Constitution.

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Daniel is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside a dense haze of marijuana.

 

[justinacolmena]

All humans are created equal under the law. It is fairly obvious that all humans are not created equal.

All are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law. And despite unequal appearance, bodily shape or size, there is a lot to the essence of being human that really is exactly like every other human, even though the law in practice heavily discriminates and treats different classes of humans very differently, sometimes brutally, based on certain societal assumptions of race, sex, age, or other aspects of appearance or assumed ancestry.

 

[Wayne Adams]

And so, finally I get somewhat of an answer. Did you, by any chance, vote for Bernie Sanders?

Social-ism must start with the social contract that defines it. We have a Constitution.

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract. Ours defines a Republican form of Government.

So, if you are now an advocate of a Republican Form of Government, that means you must have a handle on the limitations on government. In the Republic as envisioned by the founders, the Constitution was ratified for "Ourselves (meaning the founders) and our posterity" and posterity is the families - offspring of the founders, right?

this is our mission statement:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

You should, therefore, always held to that standard.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, the 14th amendment is the most abused and misused amendment in the Constitution.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Yes, the 14th amendment is the most abused and misused amendment in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. The only reason some Americans oppose it today is their misunderstanding of the fact that the courts have ruled that if you're born here, you're an American. That, in no way, shape, fashion, or form creates a so - called anchor baby since the American baby's undocumented parents are still subject to deportation just like any other undocumented immigrant.

The right wants to argue the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship, claiming original intent (an argument they NEVER invoke in Second Amendment arguments, BTW.) Under the right's theory of law, original intent bars children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens. Courts have ruled on this and that ship has sailed. Born here = citizenship. Furthermore, if the undocumented were not "subject to the jurisdiction" as some are arguing, then our system could not deport a person not subject to our jurisdiction. So, we could not do anything to undocumented foreigners. You are either subject to the jurisdiction or you're not.

Diplomats, dignitaries, maybe a military force here at the behest of our government are not subject to the jurisdiction, but people born here are citizens. I can promise you that equation isn't going to change.

HOWEVER, if the American people ever wake up and understand that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; that it created two classes of citizens; after creating those two classes of citizens, the courts tried to put everybody under its jurisdiction. Then, to top all of that off, the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights, turning God given Rights into mere privileges that government doles out as they see fit. Void / repeal the 14th Amendment on the basis that it was illegally ratified and you have solved more than the immigration issue.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, the 14th amendment is the most abused and misused amendment in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. The only reason some Americans oppose it today is their misunderstanding of the fact that the courts have ruled that if you're born here, you're an American. That, in no way, shape, fashion, or form creates a so - called anchor baby since the American baby's undocumented parents are still subject to deportation just like any other undocumented immigrant.

The right wants to argue the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship, claiming original intent (an argument they NEVER invoke in Second Amendment arguments, BTW.) Under the right's theory of law, original intent bars children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens. Courts have ruled on this and that ship has sailed. Born here = citizenship. Furthermore, if the undocumented were not "subject to the jurisdiction" as some are arguing, then our system could not deport a person not subject to our jurisdiction. So, we could not do anything to undocumented foreigners. You are either subject to the jurisdiction or you're not.

Diplomats, dignitaries, maybe a military force here at the behest of our government are not subject to the jurisdiction, but people born here are citizens. I can promise you that equation isn't going to change.

HOWEVER, if the American people ever wake up and understand that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; that it created two classes of citizens; after creating those two classes of citizens, the courts tried to put everybody under its jurisdiction. Then, to top all of that off, the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights, turning God given Rights into mere privileges that government doles out as they see fit. Void / repeal the 14th Amendment on the basis that it was illegally ratified and you have solved more than the immigration issue.

You haven't explained how it was illegally ratified.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you think the Constitution is a social contract?

It must be. It is our form of social-ism.

And so, finally I get somewhat of an answer. Did you, by any chance, vote for Bernie Sanders?

Social-ism must start with the social contract that defines it. We have a Constitution.

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Daniel is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside a dense haze of marijuana.

I provided our mission statement, from our Founding Fathers in Congress assembled.

 

[danielpalos]

Social-ism must start with the social contract that defines it. We have a Constitution.

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract. Ours defines a Republican form of Government.

So, if you are now an advocate of a Republican Form of Government, that means you must have a handle on the limitations on government. In the Republic as envisioned by the founders, the Constitution was ratified for "Ourselves (meaning the founders) and our posterity" and posterity is the families - offspring of the founders, right?

this is our mission statement:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

You should, therefore, always held to that standard.

Yes; I hold the "high ground on this" and prefer to give the right wing, political heck, simply for political fun and political practice.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Yes, the 14th amendment is the most abused and misused amendment in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. The only reason some Americans oppose it today is their misunderstanding of the fact that the courts have ruled that if you're born here, you're an American. That, in no way, shape, fashion, or form creates a so - called anchor baby since the American baby's undocumented parents are still subject to deportation just like any other undocumented immigrant.

The right wants to argue the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship, claiming original intent (an argument they NEVER invoke in Second Amendment arguments, BTW.) Under the right's theory of law, original intent bars children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens. Courts have ruled on this and that ship has sailed. Born here = citizenship. Furthermore, if the undocumented were not "subject to the jurisdiction" as some are arguing, then our system could not deport a person not subject to our jurisdiction. So, we could not do anything to undocumented foreigners. You are either subject to the jurisdiction or you're not.

Diplomats, dignitaries, maybe a military force here at the behest of our government are not subject to the jurisdiction, but people born here are citizens. I can promise you that equation isn't going to change.

HOWEVER, if the American people ever wake up and understand that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; that it created two classes of citizens; after creating those two classes of citizens, the courts tried to put everybody under its jurisdiction. Then, to top all of that off, the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights, turning God given Rights into mere privileges that government doles out as they see fit. Void / repeal the 14th Amendment on the basis that it was illegally ratified and you have solved more than the immigration issue.

You haven't explained how it was illegally ratified.

I don't like reinventing the wheel. Check this out:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume 53/Issue 2/Bryant.pdf



I'll give you more if you like

 

[Wayne Adams]

You are the most confusing man in the world. So, are you now saying you are in favor of a Republic?

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract. Ours defines a Republican form of Government.

So, if you are now an advocate of a Republican Form of Government, that means you must have a handle on the limitations on government. In the Republic as envisioned by the founders, the Constitution was ratified for "Ourselves (meaning the founders) and our posterity" and posterity is the families - offspring of the founders, right?

this is our mission statement:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

You should, therefore, always held to that standard.

Yes; I hold the "high ground on this" and prefer to give the right wing, political heck, simply for political fun and political practice.

And somebody told me I couldn't get a straight answer out of you.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, the 14th amendment is the most abused and misused amendment in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. The only reason some Americans oppose it today is their misunderstanding of the fact that the courts have ruled that if you're born here, you're an American. That, in no way, shape, fashion, or form creates a so - called anchor baby since the American baby's undocumented parents are still subject to deportation just like any other undocumented immigrant.

The right wants to argue the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship, claiming original intent (an argument they NEVER invoke in Second Amendment arguments, BTW.) Under the right's theory of law, original intent bars children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens. Courts have ruled on this and that ship has sailed. Born here = citizenship. Furthermore, if the undocumented were not "subject to the jurisdiction" as some are arguing, then our system could not deport a person not subject to our jurisdiction. So, we could not do anything to undocumented foreigners. You are either subject to the jurisdiction or you're not.

Diplomats, dignitaries, maybe a military force here at the behest of our government are not subject to the jurisdiction, but people born here are citizens. I can promise you that equation isn't going to change.

HOWEVER, if the American people ever wake up and understand that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; that it created two classes of citizens; after creating those two classes of citizens, the courts tried to put everybody under its jurisdiction. Then, to top all of that off, the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights, turning God given Rights into mere privileges that government doles out as they see fit. Void / repeal the 14th Amendment on the basis that it was illegally ratified and you have solved more than the immigration issue.

You haven't explained how it was illegally ratified.

I don't like reinventing the wheel. Check this out:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume 53/Issue 2/Bryant.pdf



I'll give you more if you like

Naw, I see where you're going. The problem with this is it's still part of the Constitution whether you believe it is or not.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Yes, the 14th amendment is the most abused and misused amendment in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. The only reason some Americans oppose it today is their misunderstanding of the fact that the courts have ruled that if you're born here, you're an American. That, in no way, shape, fashion, or form creates a so - called anchor baby since the American baby's undocumented parents are still subject to deportation just like any other undocumented immigrant.

The right wants to argue the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship, claiming original intent (an argument they NEVER invoke in Second Amendment arguments, BTW.) Under the right's theory of law, original intent bars children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens. Courts have ruled on this and that ship has sailed. Born here = citizenship. Furthermore, if the undocumented were not "subject to the jurisdiction" as some are arguing, then our system could not deport a person not subject to our jurisdiction. So, we could not do anything to undocumented foreigners. You are either subject to the jurisdiction or you're not.

Diplomats, dignitaries, maybe a military force here at the behest of our government are not subject to the jurisdiction, but people born here are citizens. I can promise you that equation isn't going to change.

HOWEVER, if the American people ever wake up and understand that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; that it created two classes of citizens; after creating those two classes of citizens, the courts tried to put everybody under its jurisdiction. Then, to top all of that off, the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights, turning God given Rights into mere privileges that government doles out as they see fit. Void / repeal the 14th Amendment on the basis that it was illegally ratified and you have solved more than the immigration issue.

You haven't explained how it was illegally ratified.

I don't like reinventing the wheel. Check this out:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume 53/Issue 2/Bryant.pdf



I'll give you more if you like

Naw, I see where you're going. The problem with this is it's still part of the Constitution whether you believe it is or not.

It is not a de jure / lawful part of the Constitution and once a sufficient number of people begin pointing it out, it could fall simply because ten percent of the population would not give it any credence. It don't take a majority, just enough to keep the Amendment from being enforced.

 

[danielpalos]

Social-ism starts with a Social Contract. Ours defines a Republican form of Government.

So, if you are now an advocate of a Republican Form of Government, that means you must have a handle on the limitations on government. In the Republic as envisioned by the founders, the Constitution was ratified for "Ourselves (meaning the founders) and our posterity" and posterity is the families - offspring of the founders, right?

this is our mission statement:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

You should, therefore, always held to that standard.

Yes; I hold the "high ground on this" and prefer to give the right wing, political heck, simply for political fun and political practice.

And somebody told me I couldn't get a straight answer out of you.

i subscribe to the federal doctrine. there is no provision for excuses, only results.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The several States have no recourse over entry into the Union 1808.

 

[Unkotare]

Amateur 'jurists' are just tiresome at this point. Nothing but a waste of time.