paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
Keep telling yourself that.
Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter The Rabbi
- Start date
Boss
Take a Memo:
No I don't and I'm not going to. Sorry! You don't get to decide who citizens are.
They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens.
I don't know how many are born when but they aren't US citizens unless Congress makes them US citizens.
They will be voting in 18 years. And you cannot do a ******* thing about it.
Yes there is much that can be done. The policy can be changed very easily. This is completely statutory and a plenary power of Congress... so go **** yourself.
While you're ******* yourself, contemplate what a total tool you are to be a cheerleader for something that is decimating the middle class and working poor in America, driving down wages, killing jobs, destroying the education system, driving up the cost of health care, burdening emergency services beyond their brink and driving violent crime through the roof across the southern border.
You are such a stupid little sheep that you will follow along with the crowd of other sheep instead of opening your eyes. Even when what you are being told to support is contradictory to everything you've claimed to stand for.
Boss
Take a Memo:
There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the **** are you talking about?
It DOES however say this:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).
Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.
So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
You are a hoot!!! They are citizens. Every child born to illegals since 1898 has bee a U.S. Citizen. Millions of them. The Supreme Court, and any other court that has had to address, even tangentially, a case involving a person born hee to illegal alien parents, has accepted, as a matter of law and of fact, that if you are born here you are a U.S. Citizen. Why do you think this is being discussed? What is it Donald wants to change if they are not citizens? Do you know what the word "plenary" means? And if you are having trouble finding and keeping a good job and if your kids are not getting the education they need, look in the mirror. There's your problem! You are a loser.
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
So, you were not aware that there are natural born citizens and those who were citizens elsewhere and became naturalized citizens? And you don't think that the Supreme Court has the power to declare a congressional act in violation of the Constitution? C'mon? You cannot be real? No one can possibly be that stupid! You are just pretending to think this nonsense to mess with me, right?
What is the difference between foreign and alien?
paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
None. The senator was speaking. He referenced foreigners, aliens, WHO ARE... The who referred to foreigners or aliens. Only foreigners or aliens who are ambassadors were excluded from being able to have children here and not have them be citizens.
Graduated from high school- can't say mine was very integrated.
Bachelors from a State University.
Masters in Economics from a less prestigious graduate school
Studied at London School of Economics and did post grad work in what was Yugoslavia
I have done business in Italy, Mexico, Canada, and China.
Now if you could just show a simple grasp of the law- or that you have ever learned any ethics.
paperview
Life is Good
If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?
The Supreme Court disagrees
In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:
By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
If the statement wasn't declarative, what the Hell was it? You brought it up, you do not wish to admit the statement's actual intent. You truncated part of the sentence to make it appear a fallacious argument. Does the full context of your sentence fragment, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." match that of the the full quote? HELL NO!
The "who" at the lead of that sentence fragment refers to the "persons born in the United States" not their parents who are foreign nationals and should be read, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong...." It's the persons born in the US not the diplomatic parents you dolt! The sentence identifies by declaration WHO is excluded and those exclusions are the children born in the US of diplomatic types accredited, i.e. officially recognized by the United States, all others notwithstanding!
The children are being declared, by the author of the Amendment, to be a separate class of foreign aliens who would NOT be considered for birthright citizenship. It is an OBVIOUS given that the parents, being on a diplomatic mission from another Nation would be foreign aliens by definition. No redundancy exists in that entire sentence. Get used to it and LIVE WITH IT!
And thank you for playing "Let's Challenge Reality!"
You are living with it every day
In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:
By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.
paperview
Life is Good
The National Effing Review:
(those libs!)
<snip>
"Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory:
Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment. Other uses of “jurisdiction” in the Constitution, such as in the 13th and 14th Amendments, also refer to the power to govern by law, not national allegiance. Instead, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to certain discrete categories of people excluded from citizenship, even though they might be born on U.S. territory.
These include the children of diplomats and enemy soldiers at war who are occupying territory. These individuals could be on U.S. territory, but are not subject to U.S. law. A third and obvious category was American Indians. At the time of the 14th Amendment, American Indians were still considered semi-sovereigns who governed themselves with their own laws and made treaties with the United States.
But “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not grant Congress the power to pick and choose among different ethnic and national groups for citizenship. Instead, the phrase recognized a few narrow exceptions to the general principle of birthright citizenship that has prevailed throughout American history.
Second, constitutional history. There is only one blemish on the American tradition of birthright citizenship: Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857).
In that notorious case, Chief Justice Roger Taney led a majority of the Supreme Court in striking down the Compromise of 1850, which limited slavery in the territories. Taney found that slaves were property and they, and their children, could never be citizens, even though born in the United States. Dred Scott helped precipitate the tragedy of the Civil War by preventing Congress from limiting the spread of slavery and reaching a compromise between North and South. Section One of the 14th Amendment directly overruled Dred Scott’s selective grant of citizenship to some races but not others.
The universal nature of birthright citizenship was made clear in the amendment’s drafting history. During congressional consideration, critics argued that the text would recognize as citizens the children of aliens. In particular, these opponents wanted to allow the western states to “deal with [the Chinese] as in their wisdom they see fit.”
Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked: “I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States.’ What does it mean?” Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Supporters of the 14th Amendment agreed with Cowan’s reading, even though it may have lost votes for their proposal. Senator John Conness of California replied to Cowan:
“The provision before us . . . relates to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.” Conness would lose his Senate seat because of his defense of the rights of Chinese immigrants, but the amendment would go to the states for ratification on the understanding that it granted birthright citizenship to the children of aliens.
Third, Supreme Court precedent. Ever since ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently read Section One as granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens on U.S. territory.
The Supreme Court’s reading of the Constitution does not automatically bind the other branches of government or the people — that is another lesson of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, for example, rose to prominence by attacking Dred Scott and pledging not to enforce the opinion beyond the parties to the case.
But this is one decision of the Court with which he would have agreed. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court faced the birthright-citizenship question directly. Ark involved a child born to Chinese parents in San Francisco. The child left the United States for a trip but was barred from returning to the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act. While the parents remained Chinese citizens, the child claimed U.S. citizenship under the birthright reading of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court upheld the child’s citizenship by virtue of his birth in San Francisco. While Congress could block immigration entirely or control the process of naturalization, it could not alter the right of citizenship for all born within American borders. The Court read the 14th Amendment to recognize the existing American practice of granting citizenship based on birthplace. It saw no support for a new exclusion of the children of aliens.
“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” The Justices explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only codified the existing exclusions for children of “alien enemies in hostile occupation,” “diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,” and “members of the Indian tribes.”
Only these categories “had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” The Court explicitly rejected the claim made today by some that aliens, because they owed allegiance to a foreign nation, were not within “the jurisdiction” of the United States. Instead, the Court concluded that the amendment “in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
The Supreme Court has never seen fit to question its original judgment in Wong Kim Ark. In this case, unlike others (such as Obergefell), the Supreme Court read the constitutional text, structure, and history exactly right.
Of course, the American people can always amend the Constitution to change the principle of birthright citizenship. Putting to one side the waste of time and resources entailed, amending the Constitution would be a sorry mistake. Rather than being a misguided act of generosity, the 14th Amendment marks one of the great achievements of the Republican party. It was the Republican party that opposed Dred Scott.
It was the Republican party that fought and won the Civil War. And it was the Republican party that drafted and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which did away with slavery and any distinction between Americans based on race. If we are to discard one of the greatest attributes of American exceptionalism, let it be the handiwork of nativist Democrats and candidates who appeal to the lesser angels of their nature.
Read more at: Birthright Citizenship & Donald Trump | National Review Online
(those libs!)
<snip>
"Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory:
Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment. Other uses of “jurisdiction” in the Constitution, such as in the 13th and 14th Amendments, also refer to the power to govern by law, not national allegiance. Instead, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to certain discrete categories of people excluded from citizenship, even though they might be born on U.S. territory.
These include the children of diplomats and enemy soldiers at war who are occupying territory. These individuals could be on U.S. territory, but are not subject to U.S. law. A third and obvious category was American Indians. At the time of the 14th Amendment, American Indians were still considered semi-sovereigns who governed themselves with their own laws and made treaties with the United States.
But “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not grant Congress the power to pick and choose among different ethnic and national groups for citizenship. Instead, the phrase recognized a few narrow exceptions to the general principle of birthright citizenship that has prevailed throughout American history.
Second, constitutional history. There is only one blemish on the American tradition of birthright citizenship: Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857).
In that notorious case, Chief Justice Roger Taney led a majority of the Supreme Court in striking down the Compromise of 1850, which limited slavery in the territories. Taney found that slaves were property and they, and their children, could never be citizens, even though born in the United States. Dred Scott helped precipitate the tragedy of the Civil War by preventing Congress from limiting the spread of slavery and reaching a compromise between North and South. Section One of the 14th Amendment directly overruled Dred Scott’s selective grant of citizenship to some races but not others.
The universal nature of birthright citizenship was made clear in the amendment’s drafting history. During congressional consideration, critics argued that the text would recognize as citizens the children of aliens. In particular, these opponents wanted to allow the western states to “deal with [the Chinese] as in their wisdom they see fit.”
Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked: “I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States.’ What does it mean?” Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Supporters of the 14th Amendment agreed with Cowan’s reading, even though it may have lost votes for their proposal. Senator John Conness of California replied to Cowan:
“The provision before us . . . relates to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.” Conness would lose his Senate seat because of his defense of the rights of Chinese immigrants, but the amendment would go to the states for ratification on the understanding that it granted birthright citizenship to the children of aliens.
Third, Supreme Court precedent. Ever since ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently read Section One as granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens on U.S. territory.
The Supreme Court’s reading of the Constitution does not automatically bind the other branches of government or the people — that is another lesson of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, for example, rose to prominence by attacking Dred Scott and pledging not to enforce the opinion beyond the parties to the case.
But this is one decision of the Court with which he would have agreed. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court faced the birthright-citizenship question directly. Ark involved a child born to Chinese parents in San Francisco. The child left the United States for a trip but was barred from returning to the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act. While the parents remained Chinese citizens, the child claimed U.S. citizenship under the birthright reading of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court upheld the child’s citizenship by virtue of his birth in San Francisco. While Congress could block immigration entirely or control the process of naturalization, it could not alter the right of citizenship for all born within American borders. The Court read the 14th Amendment to recognize the existing American practice of granting citizenship based on birthplace. It saw no support for a new exclusion of the children of aliens.
“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” The Justices explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only codified the existing exclusions for children of “alien enemies in hostile occupation,” “diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,” and “members of the Indian tribes.”
Only these categories “had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” The Court explicitly rejected the claim made today by some that aliens, because they owed allegiance to a foreign nation, were not within “the jurisdiction” of the United States. Instead, the Court concluded that the amendment “in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
The Supreme Court has never seen fit to question its original judgment in Wong Kim Ark. In this case, unlike others (such as Obergefell), the Supreme Court read the constitutional text, structure, and history exactly right.
Of course, the American people can always amend the Constitution to change the principle of birthright citizenship. Putting to one side the waste of time and resources entailed, amending the Constitution would be a sorry mistake. Rather than being a misguided act of generosity, the 14th Amendment marks one of the great achievements of the Republican party. It was the Republican party that opposed Dred Scott.
It was the Republican party that fought and won the Civil War. And it was the Republican party that drafted and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which did away with slavery and any distinction between Americans based on race. If we are to discard one of the greatest attributes of American exceptionalism, let it be the handiwork of nativist Democrats and candidates who appeal to the lesser angels of their nature.
Read more at: Birthright Citizenship & Donald Trump | National Review Online
The language is clear. The 'current interpretation' is the same interpretation that has been used since the founding of the United States.
Why exactly are you so scared to actually try to fix what you think is broken?
Still waiting Redfish- or is your silence just an admission that you were lying- again?
paperview
Life is Good
It surely would be -- and this was addressed numerous times, here's one response from the Asst. AG from 20 years ago
Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General "Legislation denying citizenship at birth to certain children born in the United States", Memoranda and Opinions (Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice),-- A bill that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face. A constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship, although not technically unlawful, would flatly contradict the Nation's constitutional history and constitutional traditions..
Amazing isn't it- you supposedly have all of this education- yet you manage to not only get wrong/lie about the 14th Amendment being only about giving citizenship to slaves- you manage to think you know more about the 14th Amendment than scholars like James Ho- who have verifiable Constitutional training
James C. Ho is a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He has over a decade of government experience, including all three branches of the federal government, and most recently as Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief appellate lawyer.
An experienced appellate, business, and constitutional litigator, Mr. Ho is 21-3 as lead counsel in various federal and state courts, including 3-0 before the U.S. Supreme Court, in cases decided by opinion. His amicus briefs have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and the Texas Supreme Court.
In addition, Mr. Ho counsels clients on constitutional issues and legal strategy in disputes involving the executive and legislative branches of state and federal government and in other adversarial contexts. He has testified before Congress and the Texas Legislature.
Mr. Ho has been recognized as a leading appellate and constitutional lawyer by The National Law Journal, Law360, Texas Lawyer, and Texas Super Lawyers. Law360 noted his “impressive string of victories before state and federal appeals courts,” while The National Law Journal placed him among the “upper echelons of Supreme Court practice.”
Government and Public Service Experience
As Solicitor General of Texas, Mr. Ho represented and counseled Attorney General Greg Abbott and other government officials and agencies in the State’s most difficult legal disputes. He has the highest win rate at the U.S. Supreme Court of any Texas solicitor general, and is the first state solicitor general in the nation to be invited by the Court to express the views of a state. He also received three Supreme Court Best Brief Awards from the National Association of Attorneys General.
Mr. Ho graduated from Stanford University with honors and a B.A. in Public Policy, and the University of Chicago Law School with high honors.
Madison defined the difference between foreign and alien in 1789. The use in the amendment is not redundant. The definition has been ignored and changed over time, but in the 18th and 19th centuries the meanings were distinctly different. It is obvious that the 14th Amendment recognizes the Madison definitions.
scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=bjil
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright Citizenship 091509.pdf
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
These proposals raise serious constitutional questions, however. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
These proposals raise serious constitutional questions, however. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The scale of the damage done to Iran so far, put into perspective.- Started by Anomalism
- Replies: 2
-
-
Turning Point USA college president resigns after racist text chat leaks- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 3
-
-
People in New York protesting Mamdani were met with counterprotesters who turned out to be Islamic terrorists.- Started by Votto
- Replies: 17
