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

[Conservative from Georgia]

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?

For our Supreme Court to create this new priviledged category of legally recognized citizenship, would be doing so without the people’s consent, or the approval of the people’s elected representatives. In fact, doing so would make a mockery of and nullify why our founders provided Article 5, in our Constitution (its amendment process) by which a willing and affirmative consent of the people is require to be obtained for such a significant recognition to be added to our Constitution.

Seems to me, by the explicit terms of our Constitution, Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are granted exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment’s, Section 5, Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are delegated the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the 14th Amendment. Not our Supreme Court.

Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and its “Republican Form of Government”, should they not apply the reasoned approach found in Luther v. Borden, and acknowledge that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President?

If our S.C. members do not follow Luther v. Borden, and decides to omnipotently create a new category of U.S. citizenship __ a hallowed and most precious privilege ___ would that not meet the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison?

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Finally, our system provides elections in order for the people to adopt new public policy, which they did by electing Trump as their President. Are we to forget, the good people of the United States lived under the Biden Administration’s open-border policy for four years. If a majority on our Supreme Court decides to create a new category of citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have also nullified the very reason for which our Founders provided elections, and they will be undoing what a majority of voters voted for when electing Trump as their new President.

Republicans were itching to send the case to the Supreme Court when still didn’t know that some conservative judges would flip.

Now they’re pretending the case doesn’t belong in Supreme Court

 

[johnwk]

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.

The 14th Amendment was a direct and intentional response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision.

The Supreme Court had ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could never be U.S. citizens and "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". The 14th Amendment was designed to explicitly dismantle this legal framework.

 

[jacksonlamb]

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!

No matter how many times you want us to accept your false assertion of what Howard wanted, you still are wrong.

You are not going to get what you want.

 

[Independent thinker]

The 14th Amendment was a direct and intentional response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision.

The Supreme Court had ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could never be U.S. citizens and "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". The 14th Amendment was designed to explicitly dismantle this legal framework.

Still not holding my breath on the decision. What seems fairly obvious didn't seem so during the arguments. I would estimate the odds at about 70-30 against this going our way.

 

[johnwk]

No matter how many times you want us to accept your false assertion of what Howard wanted, you still are wrong.

So, just what did Senator Howard want?

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 be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

 

[jacksonlamb]

What Howard wanted is not want johnwk wants.

 

[Lesh]

They have to ignore original intent in order to peddle wierd partisan ideologies instead of practical legal precidents, i.e. turning Supreme Court ruling into expressions of current fads.

“Original intent “ included slavery and excluded women from the right to vote so…

 

[protectionist]

No matter how many times you want us to accept your false assertion of what Howard wanted, you still are wrong.

You are not going to get what you want.

Of course I am right, as all intelligent people can plainly see.

 

[protectionist]

“Original intent “ included slavery and excluded women from the right to vote so…

ANY words are OK for libs to push their narrative, no matter how moronic.

 

[protectionist]

So, just what did Senator Howard want?

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 be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

They know perfectly well what Howard meant, and what the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is. They're liars.

 

[protectionist]

No matter how many times you want us to accept your false assertion of what Howard wanted, you still are wrong.

You are not going to get what you want.

Regardless of what the SCOTUS rules, and what we as Americans "get", the 14th Amendment excludes the kids of all non-citizens, AND YOU KNOW IT.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Of course I am right, as all intelligent people can plainly see.

And you just demonstrated you don't get it.

 

[protectionist]

And you just demonstrated you don't get it.

And you just demonstrated you're OK with Iran nuclear obliterating 3/4 of the world. Go ahead - show us how little you know about Islam and these lunatics' grasp of it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Regardless of what the SCOTUS rules, and what we as Americans "get", the 14th Amendment excludes the kids of all non-citizens, AND YOU KNOW IT.

You believe that, yes, because you want to, not because it in fact true.

 

[jacksonlamb]

And you just demonstrated you're OK with Iran nuclear obliterating 3/4 of the world. Go ahead - show us how little you know about Islam and these lunatics' grasp of it.

You mistake that. The war as conducted will not stop the threat. But... if we have to bomb the U sites every five to ten years, boy howdy, I am all for that.

Anyone who thinks Iran would not nuke Tel Aviv if it had the opportunity is truly simple minded.

 

[johnwk]

They know perfectly well what Howard meant, and what the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is. They're liars.

That's exactly what they do . . . lie and make shit up!