Why the Constitution refers to "Persons"

[Cassandro]

IMO: The US Constitution refers to "persons" because, at the time of its writing, there was no "United States of America" and no "citizens" there of. (The term "citizen" is only used as a prospective qualification for future Representatives.) The 14th Amendment used the same term "persons" in order to annul the original 3/5 slavery provision in Article 2 and to provide citizenship for former slaves and their children. Once these issues were finally decided, the term "persons" became obsolete. It is unfortunate that this term has continued, by custom, to be carried forward for the purposes of Congressional representation.

President Trump's Executive Orders regarding US citizenship are intended to correct this historical oversight. They may require Supreme Court confirmation and/or Constitutional Amendments to be implemented, but the current practice of allowing people who are illegally present in the US to affect the voting rights of US citizens no longer has any justification.

 

[mudwhistle]

IMO: The US Constitution refers to "persons" because, at the time of its writing, there was no "United States of America" and no "citizens" there of. (The term "citizen" is only used as a prospective qualification for future Representatives.) The 14th Amendment used the same term "persons" in order to annul the original 3/5 slavery provision in Article 2 and to provide citizenship for former slaves and their children. Once these issues were finally decided, the term "persons" became obsolete. It is unfortunate that this term has continued, by custom, to be carried forward for the purposes of Congressional representation.

President Trump's Executive Orders regarding US citizenship are intended to correct this historical oversight. They may require Supreme Court confirmation and/or Constitutional Amendments to be implemented, but the current practice of allowing people who are illegally present in the US to affect the voting rights of US citizens no longer has any justification.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Case Against Birthright Citizenship is Stronger Than You Think

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order attacking birthright citizenship has reinvigorated the debate surrounding the constitutionality of birthright citizenship and whether it should apply to the children of undocumented immigrants who are born here in the U.S. Few debates in American...

oberlinreview.org

 

[Captain Caveman]

"United States of America"

The United States of America was just a rebranding exercise of the colonies. Just like in trying to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico. Call it what you will, it's still there, just under a different name (well, to some).

 

[PeterPilot]

Obama claimed to be a Constitutional Law professor, but he wasn't.

Trump's claiming to understand the document and the intentions of the founders is pretty much in the same boat. Donald doesn't know shit from shinola about the document, and he demonstrates it frequently.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama claimed to be a Constitutional Law professor, but he wasn't.

Trump's claiming to understand the document and the intentions of the founders is pretty much in the same boat. Donald doesn't know shit from shinola about the document, and he demonstrates it frequently.

Not really. Your shitty attitude about all things Trump doesn't mean he doesn't understand the founder's intent.
It just means you're never willing to give Trump a fair shake.
You always assume the worst without thinking as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[PeterPilot]

Not really. Your shitty attitude about all things Trump doesn't mean he doesn't understand the founder's intent.
It just means you're never willing to give Trump a fair shake.
You always assume the worst without thinking as a knee-jerk reaction.

Your post is inaccurate regarding my feelings and opinions regarding DJT. I never voted for him and hold him in low regard, but there is no question that the election of 2020 was stolen. More, though he has clownish ways, I'm pleased that he has attempted to restore normal relations with Russia. I commend him for appointing RFK and attempting to subdue Pharma.

My biggest complaint is that he is an Israel First sort of man, and that he and Little Marco are happy to piss on the First Amendment in support of Israel.

 

[martybegan]

IMO: The US Constitution refers to "persons" because, at the time of its writing, there was no "United States of America" and no "citizens" there of. (The term "citizen" is only used as a prospective qualification for future Representatives.) The 14th Amendment used the same term "persons" in order to annul the original 3/5 slavery provision in Article 2 and to provide citizenship for former slaves and their children. Once these issues were finally decided, the term "persons" became obsolete. It is unfortunate that this term has continued, by custom, to be carried forward for the purposes of Congressional representation.

President Trump's Executive Orders regarding US citizenship are intended to correct this historical oversight. They may require Supreme Court confirmation and/or Constitutional Amendments to be implemented, but the current practice of allowing people who are illegally present in the US to affect the voting rights of US citizens no longer has any justification.

The best solution would be to pass an amendment making the Census count only citizens, and grating birthright citizenship only to a child of a citizen.

we can also get rid of the whole "Indian not taxed" thing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Your post is inaccurate regarding my feelings and opinions regarding DJT. I never voted for him and hold him in low regard, but there is no question that the election of 2020 was stolen. More, though he has clownish ways, I'm pleased that he has attempted to restore normal relations with Russia. I commend him for appointing RFK and attempting to subdue Pharma.

My biggest complaint is that he is an Israel First sort of man, and that he and Little Marco are happy to piss on the First Amendment in support of Israel.

In what way are they pissing on the 1st Amendment?

From what I understand, you don't have the right to come to this country and foment hatred and violence against Jews.

If you're talking about foreign students, every one of them knows that they've been granted the opportunity to attend our universities to get an education, not incited illegal behavior, including racial and religious bigotry against Jews and Christians. Soon they'll be burning our churches like they're doing in the UK and Canada. They're already saying piss on America by praying in the streets, on aircraft, and burning our flags. Years ago the flew planes into our buildings causing the deaths of thousands of people. This is just another stage of Islamic expansion. They're going into businesses telling them to stop selling anything that they consider haram (forbidden). They don't seem to care that selling banned products isn't against the law in the US.

 

[PeterPilot]

In what way are they pissing on the 1st Amendment?

From what I understand, you don't have the right to come to this country and foment hatred and violence against Jews.

If you're talking about foreign students, every one of them knows that they've been granted the opportunity to attend our universities to get an education, not incited illegal behavior, including racial and religious bigotry against Jews and Christians. Soon they'll be burning our churches like they're doing in the UK and Canada. They're already saying piss on America by praying in the streets, on aircraft, and burning our flags. Years ago the flew planes into our buildings causing the deaths of thousands of people. This is just another stage of Islamic expansion. They're going into businesses telling them to stop selling anything that they consider haram (forbidden). They don't seem to care that selling banned products isn't against the law in the US.

Thanks for a straight question, but still the answers are complicated.

For a century or more, numerous SCOTUS decisions have established the correct precedents that First Amendment rights extend to all persons, not citizens. So too numerous decisions have established the right to burn the flag. So Donald and Marco have no legitimate power to revoke papers from people who have spoken out against crimes against humanity. They have no lawful authority to carve out exceptions for the Jewish religion.

Your knowledge base regarding the events of 911 is grossly deficient, and that is because the perpetrators are masters of deception and propaganda.

 

[mudwhistle]

Thanks for a straight question, but still the answers are complicated.

For a century or more, numerous SCOTUS decisions have established the correct precedents that First Amendment rights extend to all persons, not citizens. So too numerous decisions have established the right to burn the flag. So Donald and Marco have no legitimate power to revoke papers from people who have spoken out against crimes against humanity. They have no lawful authority to carve out exceptions for the Jewish religion.

Your knowledge base regarding the events of 911 is grossly deficient, and that is because the perpetrators are masters of deception and propaganda.

They aren't carving out exceptions for Jews.
They're enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
They're also arresting people who are creating and committing violent acts against not only Jews but Christians.
Sorry about what you think about my 911 knowledge. I saw it happen live on TV.
I know what happened.
I knew it was a terrorist attack the moment I saw it.
Not to mention the fact that I've had tons of anti-terrorist training.
People I know in the government have simply reaffirmed my original impressions of 911.

Oh and fyi, if I ever see anyone burning our flag I'm gonna open a can of whoopass on their butts.
The only thing beating them to the hospital will be the headlights of the ambulance that carries them there.

If I catch a Muslim praying on the street or in an aircraft preventing people from walking on sidewalks or up the aisle I'll kick him so hard in the asshole that he'll be tasting KIWI.

 

[PeterPilot]

They aren't carving out exceptions for Jews.
They're enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
They're also arresting people who are creating and committing violent acts against not only Jews but Christians.
Sorry about what you think about my 911 knowledge. I saw it happen live on TV.
I know what happened.
I knew it was a terrorist attack the moment I saw it.
Not to mention the fact that I've had tons of anti-terrorist training.
People I know in the government have simply reaffirmed my original impressions of 911.

Oh and fyi, if I ever see anyone burning our flag I'm gonna open a can of whoopass on their butts.
The only thing beating them to the hospital will be the headlights of the ambulance that carries them there.

If I catch a Muslim praying on the street or in an aircraft preventing people from walking on sidewalks or up the aisle I'll kick him so hard in the asshole that he'll be tasting KIWI.

If their policy allows criticism of the Italian Government, the US Government, the British Government and any other government in the world, but criminalizes criticism of the Tel Aviv Government, their policy carves out an exception for the Jews.

Their policy is therefore discriminatory, discriminating in favor of Jews and the Jewish religion.

LOL, is everything you see on TV true and accurate? Can humans be fooled by the TV?

 

[mudwhistle]

If their policy allows criticism of the Italian Government, the US Government, the British Government and any other government in the world, but criminalizes criticism of the Tel Aviv Government, their policy carves out an exception for the Jews.

Their policy is therefore discriminatory, discriminating in favor of Jews and the Jewish religion.

LOL, is everything you see on TV true and accurate? Can humans be fooled by the TV?

Back in 2001 we didn't have the technology we have today.

I think you're imagining this Jew mess because of your anti-Semitic tendencies.

We said the same thing when the left was protesting during the Summer of Love using BLM and ANTIFA.

The left simply changed their target. All of the rioters are the same paid assholes that rioted against Wall Street and the George Floyd death. They just switch signs and start waving either Ukrainian flags or Palestinian flags. It's the same people.

 

[PeterPilot]

Back in 2001 we didn't have the technology we have today.

I think you're imagining this Jew mess because of your anti-Semitic tendencies.

We said the same thing when the left was protesting during the Summer of Love using BLM and ANTIFA.

The left simply changed their target. All of the rioters are the same paid assholes that rioted against Wall Street and the George Floyd death. They just switch signs and start waving either Ukrainian flags or Palestinian flags. It's the same people.

Your hunches are wrong. I've had Jewish girls as lovers back in my youth. I've had Jewish friends my entire life and still do. I've been giving financial support to Jewish Voice For Peace since before the Scamdemic. A Jewish doctor literally held my heart in his hands doing open heart surgery.

So your claim that I am anti-semitic is completely wrong, but I do understand how people with no moral argument must resort to name calling. The Zionist propagandists insist upon that.

You're typical in actually believing that 19 arabs with box cutters pulled off 911, and you are also typical in not understanding that you've been fooled. Indeed, it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled.

 

[mudwhistle]

Your hunches are wrong. I've had Jewish girls as lovers back in my youth. I've had Jewish friends my entire life and still do. I've been giving financial support to Jewish Voice For Peace since before the Scamdemic. A Jewish doctor literally held my heart in his hands doing open heart surgery.

So your claim that I am anti-semitic is completely wrong, but I do understand how people with no moral argument must resort to name calling. The Zionist propagandists insist upon that.

You're typical in actually believing that 19 arabs with box cutters pulled off 911, and you are also typical in not understanding that you've been fooled. Indeed, it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled.

Until you come up with viable proof that those Saudis were helped by someone inside our government, I have to stick to the facts that I know.

And using the defense that you have Jewish friends doesn't erase your past statements and inoculate you from hatred of Jews.
Seems to me the only time you've noticed these rent-a-rioters actions is exclusive to Jews. I pointed out that these people riot against anything and everything. That's what they're paid to do.

 

[PeterPilot]

Until you come up with viable proof that those Saudis were helped by someone inside our government, I have to stick to the facts that I know.

And using the defense that you have Jewish friends doesn't erase your past statements and inoculate you from hatred of Jews.
Seems to me the only time you've noticed these rent-a-rioters actions is exclusive to Jews. I pointed out that these people riot against anything and everything. That's what they're paid to do.

Hey dude, your claiming to know me and my likes and dislikes is full of holes, and we both know it.

You are a Zionist, and that makes you typical.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for a straight question, but still the answers are complicated.

For a century or more, numerous SCOTUS decisions have established the correct precedents that First Amendment rights extend to all persons, not citizens. So too numerous decisions have established the right to burn the flag. So Donald and Marco have no legitimate power to revoke papers from people who have spoken out against crimes against humanity. They have no lawful authority to carve out exceptions for the Jewish religion.

Your knowledge base regarding the events of 911 is grossly deficient, and that is because the perpetrators are masters of deception and propaganda.

SCOTUS also issued rulings such as Buck v Bell forcing sterilization of people with mental disabilities. And Bowers v Hardwick criminalizing gay relationships. And Citizens United v FEC protecting unlimited political donations as 'free speech.' Of course there's also Plessy v Ferguson that legalized Jim Crow laws. And Roe v Wade that federalized abortion and made it a political weapon used by one political party resulting in the killing of millions of babies in the womb.

To use SCOTUS as the benchmark for what is good, right and correct or even proper is not wise. SCOTUS rules on what is legal. And sometimes it gets it wrong.

At any rate, our treaties with other nations in no way violate any First Amendment rights. I'll have to admit that's a new gimmick to exercise antisemitic beliefs though.

As for 'persons' in the Constitution, I think the OP got it right and it's an interesting topic that has nothing to do with Israel.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hey dude, your claiming to know me and my likes and dislikes is full of holes, and we both know it.

You are a Zionist, and that makes you typical.

I'm not a Zionist.
That's a fake name created by Jew-Haters for anyone who dares to support Israel.

My religion was created by a Jew and that's where my loyalties lie.

 

[PeterPilot]

SCOTUS also issued rulings such as Buck v Bell forcing sterilization of people with mental disabilities. And Bowers v Hardwick criminalizing gay relationships. And Citizens United v FEC protecting unlimited political donations as 'free speech.' Of course there's also Plessy v Ferguson that legalized Jim Crow laws. And Roe v Wade that federalized abortion and made it a political weapon used by one political party resulting in the killing of millions of babies in the womb.

To use SCOTUS as the benchmark for what is good, right and correct or even proper is not wise. SCOTUS rules on what is legal. And sometimes it gets it wrong.

At any rate, our treaties with other nations in no way violate any First Amendment rights. I'll have to admit that's a new gimmick to exercise antisemitic beliefs though.

As for 'persons' in the Constitution, I think the OP got it right and it's an interesting topic that has nothing to do with Israel.

I agree with most of what you say. No, rarely does any government agency including SCOTUS offer moral guidance. I have never sought moral guidance from SCOTUS, but certainly some of the early cases indicated the court knew the difference between right and wrong. Yes, SCOTUS rules on what is legal, even when they are wrong.

So in our public dialogue, do you agree that no Amendment in the first 10 restrict or define rights that are exclusive to citizen? That several specifically mention Person, and in that regard SCOTUS is correct in pointing out that enumerated rights are not restricted to citizenship?

I never claimed that treaties with other nations violate First Amendment rights.

This discussion has to do with Israel because in addition to statutes and policies in about 30 states, under Rabbi Trump and Little Marco, they want to carve out exceptions for Israel. That is, following the lead of about 30 states, they want to criminalize speech that is critical of Israel. So far they have not mentioned criminalizing speech critical of Ireland or Spain or any other nation, only Israel. Is that lawful?

And with all those pictures of our treasonous leaders at the Wailing Wall wearing Kippahs, it seems to me that another First Amendment issue is raised. Our government is supposed to be neutral on religious matters. It may not favor one over the other, and it shall not interfere with the free exercise of any religion.

Are our illustrious leaders like Rabbi Trump, Rabbi DeSantis and Rabbi Abbott favoring Judaism over other religions?

 

[PeterPilot]

I'm not a Zionist.
That's a fake name created by Jew-Haters for anyone who dares to support Israel.

My religion was created by a Jew and that's where my loyalties lie.

If you are claiming to be a Christian, and you support the murder and mayhem practiced by the Jewish State Of Israel, you sound like Ted Cruz. You have not a clue about the message of Jesus Christ. You advocate for apartheid, hatred and genocide. Jesus would certainly NOT approve of all that.