ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #21
Then I hope the true believer(loserterian clown!) loses to a democrat!
Trey Goudy joins the dark side, endorses Marco amnesty Rubio
Then I hope the true believer(loserterian clown!) loses to a democrat!
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #22
When you fight for 18th century America with hardly any government. Well, most people in this nation must seem like hard core rino's too you. I feel bad for a idiot like you.
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #23
They should be sent to somalia and forced to live the way they want to force the rest of us.
I told you guys it was going to be Rubio. People thought he's too far down in the polls to become the eventual frontrunner but at that time it was too soon to emerge out of the past what you wanted to do was lay low and fly under the radar not too high not too low Rubio is the obvious choice they could have at one time card with Kristi but he's too corrupt Jeb Bush his last name screws him case which is kind of a loser and that popular Rubio has the look he's not a scumbag like Ted Cruz even those kids are adorable take cruises a scumbag and I told you guys Carson and Fiorino weren't serious candidates they were two tokens
Nosmo King
Gold Member
Dog whistle politics.
When Republicans say entitlements are basically wrong, they mean Black entitlement recipients are lazy. When they call for strict enforcement of immigration laws, they mean Latinos are criminals. It's a common tactic because the Conservative base has such male lead and shallow minds open to divisive and hateful messages.
When Republicans say entitlements are basically wrong, they mean Black entitlement recipients are lazy. When they call for strict enforcement of immigration laws, they mean Latinos are criminals. It's a common tactic because the Conservative base has such male lead and shallow minds open to divisive and hateful messages.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Ending anchor babies requires a constitutional amendment.
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #30
Have you ever wondered why only a few people in the entire fucking congress agree's with you? Because you're nutz.
- Thread starter
- #32
The anchor baby thing is a myth! The anchor baby myth was invented by Justice William Brennan in 1982
see: "The anchor baby scam was invented 30... - Anti Liberal Zone
"The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national heritage."
If there is a sincere desire to establish the meaning of the 14th Amendment rather than create our own meaning, should we not turn to those who actually wrote the amendment and debated it to discover its meaning as it was understood when the 14th amendment was framed and adopted? If your answer is “yes”, then we must determine what the qualifying words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the 14th Amendment.
JWK
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. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #33
The anchor baby myth.
In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
“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 why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“?
The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down
“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.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “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”
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.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
JWK
"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)
In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
“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 why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“?
The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down
“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.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “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”
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.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
JWK
"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)
perhaps but Gowdy is happy to ignore the issue . And as I said , he doesn't do anything on chain migration [family reunification] or anything on the visa lottery !! Anyway , people can believe or disbelieve or spin NUMBERS USA any way they like but I stand by my reasoning and posted info Admiral !!
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Respectfully, what does any of that have to do with what I posted?
- Thread starter
- #37
Of course, that is all you know.
- Thread starter
- #38
You posted an unsubstantiated opinion asserting "Ending anchor babies requires a constitutional amendment".
JWK
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Jailed wife of ex-Tory councillor loses sentence appeal over Southport tweet- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 0
-
Russia attacks Ukraine with over 100 drones...after trump call- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
