Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Redfish]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

You are in error!

No, that decision is in error and should be reversed.

 

[Claudette]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.

I agree. Illegal aliens weren't a problem back then like they are now.

You can bet none of those who pushed for the 14th gave one ounce of thought to illegals being born in America and being granted citizenship for being born here.

I'd also be willing to bet they never, ever thought it would be used to grant citizenship to everyone born in the US since it was meant for ex slaves and their kids.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

You are in error!

No, that decision is in error and should be reversed.

That is only your opinion, and opinions are like anal orifices! Until such time as that decision is revised or reversed, it's the Law of the Land! Live with it!

 

[bendog]

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

You are trying to apply ante-bellum events to post bellum events... you can't do that. Bodecea was, in other words, simply saying: to the victor goes the spoils and it has always been that way. You are referring to something that has no connection with that statement.

No, I'm simply saying the South could not justify its secession based upon actions by the Founders in rebelling against the King.

As to "post bellum," I merely posted that the Reconstruction Acts were not unconsititutional, and arguments that the 14th was not really ratified because the Southern states were blackballed are bullshit.

 

[Boss]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

You are in error!

And yet... at the very same time this ruling was made and opinion rendered... it does not apply to aliens who are Native American. Born on the same US soil and subject to the same US laws. It is incident to birth if the birth meets the criteria, otherwise it is given by statute. If neither apply, it doesn't exist.

YOU are in error!

 

[Syriusly]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. .

Actually Wong Kim Ark never discusses whether his parents were here legally- or illegally.

Wong Kim Ark discusses many things extensively- including how U.S. citizenship law is based upon English Common law- which noted that those born in the country were subjects of the King.

Any lingering doubts about 'jurisdiction' was dispelled by Plyler v. Doe- which explicitly notes that a child born in Texas is subject to the jurisdiction of Texas.

Born + jurisidiction= U.S. citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

You are in error!

And yet... at the very same time this ruling was made and opinion rendered... it does not apply to aliens who are Native American. Born on the same US soil and subject to the same US laws. It is incident to birth if the birth meets the criteria, otherwise it is given by statute. If neither apply, it doesn't exist.

YOU are in error!

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans- those who were born in 'sovereign Indian nations not subject to taxation by the United States'.

An Native American born in Chicago was born a U.S. citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer

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.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

 

[Boss]

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-

But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.

YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.

 

[Boss]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer

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.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

Jurisdiction doesn't mean "subject to the laws." There is no one in the US who isn't subject to the laws. But you are somewhat correct.. IF the 14th meant to confer birthright citizenship, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't need to be there at all... it's meaningless.

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

 

[Syriusly]

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-

But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.

YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.

Like a typical Conservative all you can do is insult.

Actually- that is not fair- most Conservatives are not idiots who just insult those they disagree with like you do.

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Now- tell me how an illegal alien here in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Does he have to pay sales tax? If he robs a bank, can he be arrested? Hell- we even execute illegal aliens. So tell me how Edgar Tamayo was not in the jurisdiction of the United States when he was given his lethal injection, despite the protests from Mexico?

Lethal Injection Set For Today As Last-Minute Appeals Fly

 

[Syriusly]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer

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.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

Jurisdiction doesn't mean "subject to the laws." There is no one in the US who isn't subject to the laws.

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

 

[Boss]

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'-

And as I have correctly and accurately pointed out-- it did not apply to Native Americans who were born in the same United States on the same soil under the same laws. In 1923, Congress passed a specific act to grant citizenship in those cases.

 

[Boss]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'-

And as I have correctly and accurately pointed out-- it did not apply to Native Americans who were born in the same United States on the same soil under the same laws. In 1923, Congress passed a specific act to grant citizenship in those cases.

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

 

[Boss]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

 

[Boss]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many ******* times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

 

[Boss]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt.

Well... Illegal aliens are also exempt! Just like the Native Americans were! They do not meet the "subject to jurisdiction" criteria established in the 14th. You can sit here and "explain" all you like, the fact remains, the 14th does NOT confer automatic birthright citizenship... it never did.

 

[paddymurphy]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt.

Well... Illegal aliens are also exempt! Just like the Native Americans were! They do not meet the "subject to jurisdiction" criteria established in the 14th. You can sit here and "explain" all you like, the fact remains, the 14th does NOT confer automatic birthright citizenship... it never did.

You completely ignore the Supreme Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"InInglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:

"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.