S.C. should keep its nose out of the birthright citizenship case, which is a political matter

[jacksonlamb]

I interpreted nothing. I posted, verbatim from the S.C. rulings. Stop making stuff up.

Then you gave your interpretation, which is not in line with Ark. You are wrong. You will lose the case. You will live with it.

 

[80zephyr]

Considering a preponderance of historical evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress clearly and undoubtedly indicates the 14th Amendment was always intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of all foreign nationals except children of foreign diplomats, born on American soil, AND strongly suspecting that SCOTUS will vote 8-1 or 7-2 to support such citizenship, I believe the writer of this thread's OP is going to be magnificently unhappy when that vote happens.

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”​

― Thomas Jefferson

 

[jacksonlamb]

SCOTUS was constructed for this issue.

 

[johnwk]

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”​

― Thomas Jefferson

And let me add the following:



“We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted” . . . Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895)

“ Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. ” Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938)
.

“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. L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 453 (1934)

“like every clause in every constitution it must have a reasonable interpretation, and be held to express the intention of its framers. ” Woodson v. Murdock, 89 U.S. 351, 369 (1874)

“Our sworn duty to construe the Constitution requires, however, that we read it to effectuate the intent and purposes of the Framers.” Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 288-89 (1964)


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 “:

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law." Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903),

"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]

"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments, is to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties." J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 383 (1833).

"The object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it." T. COOLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS 124 (8th ed. 1927)

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

 

[HikerGuy83]

Considering a preponderance of historical evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress indicates the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, I’m having great difficulty imagining, under what legal reasoning can our Supreme Court members grant the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship to the mentioned offspring?

Not a political matter. A legal and reading is fundamental matter.

Agreed

 

[jacksonlamb]

johnwk is forgetting that neither TJ nor he are on SCOTUS.

 

[White 6]

Are you a LIBTARD?

No. Christian father of 3 successful well discipline grown kids, 20 year combat arms (Cav/Armor, Enlisted and Officer) still armed and concealed carrying, retired guy, that organized neighborhood watch and made sure single women in the neighborhood kept a load shotgun and knew how and when to use it. I do not like big government, government overreach, crooked politicians or wasted tax dollars, preferring to be left the hell alone. Strict constitutionalist/Rule of law supporter.

Nah, not too liberal minded. Most of my friend are likewise retired military, who like to shoot. We give nobody any trouble, but won't be anybody's victim, either.

 

[johnwk]

Agreed

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

And, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment vest exclusive power in Congress to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th amendment which is a political matter.

 

[Concerned American]

Keep in mind that it was the states who were to decide who got to vote in their elections, not the FEds, and according to some scholars, states can allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, and not only that if they allow them to vote for state legislative offices then they are allowed to vote for the Federal offices, as well. IF the SC upholds that, then it will require a Constitutional Amendment to change that. The SAVE Act wasn't nearly strong enough.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-constitution-could-let-noncitizens-vote-bee06b3f?msockid=3db30654acf969e701091114ad07686b

Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

I believe federal elections must adhere to federal law--not so for state and local elections. If the election includes federal offices--the federal law attaches.

 

[g5000]

Considering a preponderance of historical evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress indicates the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national

Wrong.

I've posted the debate from the congressional record many times on this forum.

You are dead wrong.

 

[protectionist]

Considering a preponderance of historical evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress clearly and undoubtedly indicates the 14th Amendment was always intended to grant U.S. citizenship to the offspring of all foreign nationals except children of foreign diplomats, born on American soil, AND strongly suspecting that SCOTUS will vote 8-1 or 7-2 to support such citizenship, I believe the writer of this thread's OP is going to be magnificently unhappy when that vote happens.

So you say the 14 th amendment intends to deny U.S. citizenship to the offspring of children of foreign diplomats, born on American soil, but the kids of fence climbers, tunnel diggers, hideaways in car trunks are all OK.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong.

I've posted the debate from the congressional record many times on this forum.

You are dead wrong.

YOU are who is wrong.
Howard & Bingham both opposed kids of foreigners being given citizenship, and they said so in plain English, and I've posted their quotes numerous times.

 

[protectionist]

Common sense and historical evidence easily rebuts your much likely to be rejected hope with loud laughter and a paper with "nope" sent over to the WH.

Both common sense & historical evidence oppose birthright citizenship to kid of foreigners. Especially illegal invaders.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

And, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment vest exclusive power in Congress to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th amendment which is a political matter.

exclusive power by Congress to enforce not overthrow the provisions of the 14th Amendment

 

[g5000]

YOU are who is wrong.
Howard & Bingham both opposed kids of foreigners being given citizenship, and they said so in plain English, and I've posted their quotes numerous times.

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

 

[johnwk]

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.

On May 30th, of the 14th Amendment debates Senator Trumbull states:

“The 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 “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means….“ It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." see: Cong. Globe 39th Congress, page 2893, 1st and 2nd columns

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State… “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”.”___ Cong. Globe. Page 2893 2nd dolumn, halfway down

Mr. HOWARD later follows up with regard to the meaning of “jurisdiction” by saying:

“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” SEE: Cong.Globe, 39th Congress, page 2895, middle column

And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) with regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the SCOTUS emphatically states:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

And then in 1884, the Supreme Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment:

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”_ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)

And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, may vote, is entitled to other “privileges” as noted in the 14th Amendment, and be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is therefore subject to the complete and political jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

 

[80zephyr]

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

What part of this: This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,

confuses you?

 

[johnwk]

Preponderance of the evidence standard and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

there is a preponderance of the evidence standard such as:

On May 30th, of the 14th Amendment debates Senator Trumbull states:

“The 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 “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means….“ It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." see: Cong. Globe 39th Congress, page 2893, 1st and 2nd columns

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State… “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”.”___ Cong. Globe. Page 2893 2nd dolumn, halfway down

Mr. HOWARD later follows up with regard to the meaning of “jurisdiction” by saying:

“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” SEE: Cong.Globe, 39th Congress, page 2895, middle column

And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) with regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the SCOTUS emphatically states:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

And then in 1884, the Supreme Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment:

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”_ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)

And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, may vote, is entitled to other “privileges” as noted in the 14th Amendment, and be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is therefore subject to the complete and political jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

What is the evidence to the contrary?

 

[Independent thinker]

Plain language is an enemy of MAGAts.

LOL. There is no plain language, just as there is no plain language that abortion is a right. But, the Congress's debates on the subject did seem to indicate they were talking about slaves regarding that amendment and not just anyone and everyone.

 

[protectionist]

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

Dummy. I have posted that same quote 100 times for 10 years.

So you're saying that Howard intends to block the kids of diplomats, but is perfectly OK with the kids of FENCE CLIMBERS, TUNNEL DIGGERS, CAR TRUNK HIDERS,..........Uh huh.

You do realize how stupid you look right ?
Obviously, ,Howard mentioned diplomats as examples. dum dum.

Did you expect Howard to list every single kind of illegal alien's kid known to man ? Pheeeew!