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

[Jackson]

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...

The author of the 14th amendment. Senator Howard, wrote an essay about the amendment so it would not be misconstrued.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of persons."

Oddly, his essay wasn't part of what was voted on when the 14th was ratified.

So, you agree that Senator Howard did not intend for foreigner's babies to be citizens. Thank you.

 

[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...

The author of the 14th amendment. Senator Howard, wrote an essay about the amendment so it would not be misconstrued.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of persons."

Oddly, his essay wasn't part of what was voted on when the 14th was ratified.

So, you agree that Senator Howard did not intend for foreigner's babies to be citizens. Thank you.

Senator Howards intentions don't matter. The specific wording of the amendment, and any relevant Supreme Court rulings are all that counts.

 

[Agit8r]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

They didn't have to "give it away freely"

BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THE CASE.

Guess you still don't understand what jurisdiction means... This is like herding cats!

It means that the people previously described are citizens until they renounce their citizenship. Much in the same way that Ted Cruz was a citizen of Canada (just because he was born there) up until he renounced it last year.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

They didn't have to "give it away freely"

BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THE CASE.

Guess you still don't understand what jurisdiction means... This is like herding cats!

It means that the people previously described are citizens until they renounce their citizenship. Much in the same way that Ted Cruz was a citizen of Canada (just because he was born there) up until he renounced it last year.

Cruz is not a natural born Citizen

 

[Agit8r]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

They didn't have to "give it away freely"

BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THE CASE.

Guess you still don't understand what jurisdiction means... This is like herding cats!

It means that the people previously described are citizens until they renounce their citizenship. Much in the same way that Ted Cruz was a citizen of Canada (just because he was born there) up until he renounced it last year.

Cruz is not a natural born Citizen

I'll leave that to the judiciary to sort out. Certainly Canada considered him a natural born citizen, until he renounced his citizenship. It was in such a manner that I was using him as an example of what was meant by subject to jurisdiction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?

Swing and a miss...strike three.....nice try...didn't work, though...

You've offered nothing to try to prove your point other than some say-so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Nope. It is SCOTUS property.

Nope, read article 1, section 8, clause 4.

The congresses power over naturalization affect only those born outside the United States. Those born here have never needed to be naturalized.

Yo, if the parents were illegal? Then the Baby is too!

"GTP"

And what if the mother is legal and the father is not? What if the father is legal and the mother is not?

Where is that explicitly covered in the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read it, again, Vigi, you have it backwards. Again. Your interp is not the one followed.

It was NEVER law.... it was simply DEEMED into existence by a liberal scumbag justice.... and no one paid attention, as usual with the Feckless Republican MODERATES!

Your bombast has no ballast. Your movement is getting no traction. You all are talking a lot, but the wheels are spinning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is between a man and a woman... even a dumbass liberal knows that! Being RIGHT sure does make you mad! LOLOLOL!

Nope.

 

[007]

Illegals are under our jurisdiction, just like Wong Kim Ark's parents were under our jurisdiction. That's the similarity, and the only thing that matters.

Children born to parents under our jurisdiction are citizens, period.

No... sorry... and repeating that garbage isn't going to change it.

You can't debate a fact. Sorry.

Are illegals under US jurisdiction, or not?

If they aren't, then they aren't breaking our laws.

You lose.

If anything you said were a fact, I'd debate it, but you said nothing that was fact.

Illegal aliens are illegal aliens, and their children are not automatic citizens, period, end of story.

You'll have to find a way to deal with that.

 

[007]

I think Levin is correct about the original intent of the 14th ammendment and that he is correct that congress has the power to define who falls under the jurisdiction clause of the ammendment. That being said, being correct is useless if those in power disagree. For many years now, the children of illegal immigrants have been given birthright citizenship such that it has been ingrained into immigration law. It is extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that the supreme court will rule otherwise even if a case were to make it to the court.

It's not up to the supreme court. It's up to congress.

This idea that the supreme court is the end all, be all, to every issue in America isn't right. They are but one branch of our government. They have their job, which is to interpret the constitution, which they regularly ignore, ahem... but the anchor baby issue is clearly up to congress. SCOTUS is irrelevant.

 

[deltex1]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

There's a lot of PMS in you Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

There's a lot of PMS in you Jake.

Yeah, you guys are unhappy that the rest of the country does not agree with your small minority of citizen children whose parents are not citizens.

 

[deltex1]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

There's a lot of PMS in you Jake.

Yeah, you guys are unhappy that the rest of the country does not agree with your small minority of citizen children whose parents are not citizens.

Rasmussen Poll: 61% of Voters Oppose Anchor Baby Citizenship | immigration polling | Limits to Growth

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

There's a lot of PMS in you Jake.

Yeah, you guys are unhappy that the rest of the country does not agree with your small minority of citizen children whose parents are not citizens.

Rasmussen Poll: 61% of Voters Oppose Anchor Baby Citizenship | immigration polling | Limits to Growth

Perhaps, though I think it is lower. Mark Levin's proposals simply don't work legally or politically.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

The last 8 years has taught US that the branches of government, processes, and Constitution can be bypassed in order to achieve a goal. Precedent has been set. Hurts when you are on the other side, doesn't it?
It's you people that need to decide if you want US as a Country to be beholden to process. If not, you are standing in sand when you are trying to make a point about adhering to process and the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cultural McCarthyites, like Mark Levin, hate constitutional process and the development of the American narrative.

 

[Rotagilla]

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

There's a lot of PMS in you Jake.

Yeah, you guys are unhappy that the rest of the country does not agree with your small minority of citizen children whose parents are not citizens.

Rasmussen Poll: 61% of Voters Oppose Anchor Baby Citizenship | immigration polling | Limits to Growth

Perhaps, though I think it is lower. Mark Levin's proposals simply don't work legally or politically.

Oh..you "think" they won't work legally?

Levin graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Temple college at 19 and earned his Juris Doctorate from Temple in 1980....He is an accomplished lawyer who has argued cases in the supreme court, written several best sellers on government and worked in the u.s government for years.

When and where did you get your law degree?
How many cases have you argued before the supreme court?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Levin is a media talk host with a law degree. Any intelligent, educated, well-read adult knows no such thing as an "anchor baby" exists. And the Hispanics, who with women, hold the tie breaker in voting, will not vote candidates who want to deport chidren. Leven is not special, but the folks who believe him are spec ed for sure. Rota, he is after your money, nothing more.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

There's a lot of PMS in you Jake.

Yeah, you guys are unhappy that the rest of the country does not agree with your small minority of citizen children whose parents are not citizens.

Rasmussen Poll: 61% of Voters Oppose Anchor Baby Citizenship | immigration polling | Limits to Growth

Perhaps, though I think it is lower. Mark Levin's proposals simply don't work legally or politically.

Oh..you "think" they won't work legally?

Levin graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Temple college at 19 and earned his Juris Doctorate from Temple in 1980....He is an accomplished lawyer who has argued cases in the supreme court, written several best sellers on government and worked in the u.s government for years.

When and where did you get your law degree?
How many cases have you argued before the supreme court?

 

[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.

The last 8 years has taught US that the branches of government, processes, and Constitution can be bypassed in order to achieve a goal. Precedent has been set. Hurts when you are on the other side, doesn't it?
It's you people that need to decide if you want US as a Country to be beholden to process. If not, you are standing in sand when you are trying to make a point about adhering to process and the Constitution.

What? I thought right wingers were all about the constitution. Amazing how quickly you turn traitorous and want to throw it out when you don't get your way.