The 14A Birthright Citizenship is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as applied

Winston said:
Damn, total ignorance

Regarding Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. The 14th amendment does not apply to American territories. If you are born in America Samoa, are you granted birthright citizenship? Uh, NO. Puerto Rico is still a territory, Alaska was not a state in 1924, Hawaii was not a state in 1952. Did you totally flunk American History. And American Indians, living on reservations, are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Did you come up with this bullshit all by your lonesome or are you just repeating someone else's ignorant babbling?
Click to expand...
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, granting full citizenship to American Indians and Alaska Native Americans. Though the Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, granted all U.S. citizens the right to vote regardless of race, it wasn't until the 1924 that American Indians and Alaska Native Americans could enjoy the rights granted by this amendment.

What is the Snyder Act of 1921 and who does it apply to? | Indian Affairs

The Snyder Act of 1921 authorizes Indian Affairs to operate programs for the benefit and assistance of American Indians and Alaska Natives throughout the United States. The Act is one of several legislative reforms that was designed to improve the living conditions for American Indians on...
www.bia.gov www.bia.gov

Did you come up with this bullshit all by your lonesome or are you just repeating someone else's ignorant babbling?
 
Contumacious said:
As shown the 14A only applied to Afro-AMericans - numerous acts have been enacted since the 14A was allegedy enacted
Click to expand...
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...

Puerto Rico , hmmm


www.law.cornell.edu

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
Last edited:
Contumacious said:
Futher EVIDENCE that the purpose of the 14A was to give US citizenship to Afro-Americans ONLY

- Congress has treated each state, territory or ethnic group specifically

ALASKANS

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, granting full citizenship to American Indians and Alaska Native Americans.

Puerto Ricans
Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship by the Jones-Shafroth Act on March 2, 1917

American Indians
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, granting full citizenship to American Indians and Alaska Native Americans.

Hawaiians
A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make sense.
 
Stann said:
Correct , this paranoia over the border is a recent event. People , especially native Americans crossed it all the time.
Click to expand...
The Founding Fathers never dreamt that a US President or political party would invite foreign citizens to come over - ACTUALLY FLY ILLEGAL CITIZENS IN then illegally seek their vote as gratitude therefor.
 
Kilroy2 said:
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...

Puerto Rico , hmmm


www.law.cornell.edu

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
The Problem with the 14A is that Northerners placed Southerners under MARTIAL FUCKING LAW they had to agree to the 14A or else

Let the delegation from New Jersey explain it to you:



THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION


The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three fourths of the States, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this State to withdraw its assent is undeniable....
That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house.(3)

(3) The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868,
 
Contumacious said:
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, granting full citizenship to American Indians and Alaska Native Americans. Though the Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, granted all U.S. citizens the right to vote regardless of race, it wasn't until the 1924 that American Indians and Alaska Native Americans could enjoy the rights granted by this amendment.

What is the Snyder Act of 1921 and who does it apply to? | Indian Affairs

The Snyder Act of 1921 authorizes Indian Affairs to operate programs for the benefit and assistance of American Indians and Alaska Natives throughout the United States. The Act is one of several legislative reforms that was designed to improve the living conditions for American Indians on...
www.bia.gov www.bia.gov

Did you come up with this bullshit all by your lonesome or are you just repeating someone else's ignorant babbling?
Click to expand...
WTF. I mean you are a whole hell of a lot stupid. Snyder proposed more than one piece of legislation. Here, let me help you.

Want an explanation, here.

en.wikipedia.org

Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Contumacious said:
The Problem with the 14A is that Northerners placed Southerners under MARTIAL FUCKING LAW they had to agree to the 14A or else

Let the delegation from New Jersey explain it to you:



THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION


The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three fourths of the States, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this State to withdraw its assent is undeniable....
That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house.(3)

(3) The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868,
Click to expand...

So what the New jersey Legislature in 1868 did not like what was going on

They had an opinion which is clear but unfortunately this is the US where other states had a say.

So just because you believe in the NJ legislature in 1868 does not make it what you believe

There are other states in the Union who have a say which you do not seem to understand

Majority rule , know it and understand it but you don't have to like it.
 
Last edited:
Contumacious said:
The Problem with the 14A is that Northerners placed Southerners under MARTIAL FUCKING LAW they had to agree to the 14A or else

Let the delegation from New Jersey explain it to you:



THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION


The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three fourths of the States, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this State to withdraw its assent is undeniable....
That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house.(3)

(3) The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868,
Click to expand...
New Jersey was in the Confederacy? Damn hoss, you best tap out, you are looking like a fool.
 
Kilroy2 said:
So what the New jersey Legislature in 1868 did not like what was going on
Click to expand...
So the fact that the Southern States were under MARTIAL FUCKING LAW at the time of the purported enactment doesn't bother you in the least ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

putin´s 🇷🇺 FSB says 'China is an enemy'

< Previous Thread

The Ball Is the Republican Reconciliation Bill, Nothing Else!

Next Thread >

Similar threads

J
Is Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, constitutional?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
957
Unkotare
Unkotare
TemplarKormac
Birthright Citizenship: What the Landmark 1898 Ark Case Does Not Say
2 3
Replies
51
Views
777
NewsVine_Mariyam
NewsVine_Mariyam
mikegriffith1
Trump Is Demonstrably Right About the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
Monk-Eye
Monk-Eye
J
Judge Boardman ignored facts when blocking Trump’s E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
1K
Dante
Dante
J
When judges meddle with setting public policy, they act in defiance of our Constitution
2 3
Replies
58
Views
770
John Edgar Slow Horses
John Edgar Slow Horses

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom