Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[Vigilante]

As only The Great One can explain!

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

 

[OKTexas]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Learn it little piss ant!

Lavin give you that silly picture?

 

[OKTexas]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

 

[OKTexas]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

And they haven't ruled on this specific issue so what ever the congress wants they can do under their power to set uniform laws on naturalization, spelled out in article 1.

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

 

[OKTexas]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

You might want to read the reasoning for the 14th and what the authors of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject and how they defined jurisdiction.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, theDred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United Statesandsubject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

Guide to the Constitution

 

[Statistikhengst]

As only The Great One can explain!

Uh, no.

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Yepp.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well I guess that means you win. All you have to do is make a phone call, and I'm sure Washington will get right on that. They might even give you an award for finding something that all those constitutional scholars never knew was in there. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

LOL!!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.

Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.

Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.

Nothing dishonest about an answer that covers the question. Obviously the right thinks Levin, or trump, or some other rattlehead found a magic phrase that will solve all your fears and worries about immigration, and I say it won't work. That's about as far as we need to go. If you think your little idea is valid, then you don't need to be wasting time here. Show what kind of a man you are and demand that somebody do something about it. If your little phrase is that forceful and definitive, we should be hearing about congressional hearings by tomorrow night.

 

[FA_Q2]

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.

Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.

Nothing dishonest about an answer that covers the question. Obviously the right thinks Levin, or trump, or some other rattlehead found a magic phrase that will solve all your fears and worries about immigration, and I say it won't work. That's about as far as we need to go. If you think your little idea is valid, then you don't need to be wasting time here. Show what kind of a man you are and demand that somebody do something about it. If your little phrase is that forceful and definitive, we should be hearing about congressional hearings by tomorrow night.

There is no magic here - the right has no interests in reforming immigration than the left does. We know this from their actions.

That does not, however, have any relation to a debate on what is possible under the constitution for congress to enact. I don't see any particular problem with what OK is stating. If the court has not ruled on this issue then it would clearly be within congress' power to enact.

I also believe that the court would overturn the law though.