Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Claiming that the government can choose to "interpret" the 14th Amendment in a way in which it was NOT written or intended IS in fact conceding that the government can also choose to "interpret" the Constitution to mean that we actually have no 1st, 4th, 5th, etc., Amendment rights, as well.
It's not "my" interpretation. It's the exact meaning the citizenship clause's originators stated ON RECORD. It's the exact ruling Gray stated in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
I'm not "interpreting" anything. I'm taking Trumbull, Howard, and Gray at their word. Why aren't you?
For every citation that supports your interpretation, there is a citation that supports the opposite. The government is interpreting the 14th Amendment in the way it IS written and the way it was intended to be interpreted, per their expert readings, and the precedents. They don't agree with you. That's the way it is.
You can pout, shout, and stomp your feet all you want. EVERY case that goes before the Supreme Court is an argument about how to interpret the Constitution. EVERY single one of them. EVERY case has at least two sides (and sometimes more) arguing for their interpretation. EVERY lawyer believes just as passionately as you that his interpretation is the true one, the accurate one, the exact one. And one side loses. The court rules against one side. EVERY time. Your stomping of your feet will not change reality.
For every citation that supports your interpretation, there is a citation that supports the opposite. The government is interpreting the 14th Amendment in the way it IS written and the way it was intended to be interpreted, per their expert readings, and the precedents. They don't agree with you. That's the way it is.
You can pout, shout, and stomp your feet all you want. EVERY case that goes before the Supreme Court is an argument about how to interpret the Constitution. EVERY single one of them. EVERY case has at least two sides (and sometimes more) arguing for their interpretation. EVERY lawyer believes just as passionately as you that his interpretation is the true one, the accurate one, the exact one. And one side loses. The court rules against one side. EVERY time. Your stomping of your feet will not change reality.
Correct.
DC's statement should be stickied for those who labor under the belief that there is no need for the Supreme Court, for, after all! the Constitution is so clear in its meaning!
DC's statement should be stickied for those who labor under the belief that there is no need for the Supreme Court, for, after all! the Constitution is so clear in its meaning!
Bill Clinton shouldn't have said, "The Constitution is only a piece of paper."
Rather, he should have said, "The Constitution is only WORDS."
You are in fact lying about Trumbull, Howard, Gray and their words with every post.
False.
Their words are a matter of public record.
Trumbull: "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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Gray: "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative" United States v. Wong Kim Ark
For every citation that supports your interpretation, there is a citation that supports the opposite. The government is interpreting the 14th Amendment in the way it IS written and the way it was intended to be interpreted, per their expert readings, and the precedents.
I've quoted the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause authors' stated intent of the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Direct from the source of origin. It doesn't get any more authentic than that.
I've quoted Gray's exact words in which he explicity states,"the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Again, ANOTHER quote direct from the source of origin. It doesn't get any more authentic than that.
Trumbull: "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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
This comment was regarding Native Americans only. They were sovereign nations, and therefore excluded from the complete jurisdiction of the US.
It is a lie to assert he was talking about the children of aliens born on US soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Howard: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States"
And as the US Supreme Court had already told us decades before the 14th Amendment was written and ratified:
Quote:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon7 Cranch 116 1812
It is a lie to assert that any other nation has any jurisdiction whatsoever over anybody or anything on US soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Gray: "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative" United States v. Wong Kim Ark
And from that case we get the only Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen that has ever been cited by any subsequent court as precedent:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
It is a lie to therefore claim that permanent domicile has anything to do with it.
This comment was regarding Native Americans only. They were sovereign nations, and therefore excluded from the complete jurisdiction of the US.
Is the U.K. not a sovereign nation?
Trumbull may have been citing Native Americans as an example, but he further clarified the intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement when he specifically stated:
"Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction"
Do we make treaties with the British? If so, under the intent of the 14th Amendment and according to Trumbull's own words, Brits are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Obama was born a Brit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
