Would applying 14th Amendment Section 3 against sanctuary cities work? (enemies, illegal aliens, law)
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.
I know, there is a loophole that may let alderman off the hook and mayors off the hook, but we can get state reps, state judges, governors, etc that go along with sanctuary cities.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Simply a Congressional bill that would declare the following:
"As per the 14th Amendment, Section 3, any person in office who helps maintain a sanctuary city for illegal aliens shall be removed from office and shall be prohibited from ever holding any more office again." could clear up a lot of problems.
I know, there is a loophole that may let alderman off the hook and mayors off the hook, but we can get state reps, state judges, governors, etc that go along with sanctuary cities.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Simply a Congressional bill that would declare the following:
"As per the 14th Amendment, Section 3, any person in office who helps maintain a sanctuary city for illegal aliens shall be removed from office and shall be prohibited from ever holding any more office again." could clear up a lot of problems.
Obviously unconstitutional. the Constitution sets the requirements to be a Senator or a Representative. To change them you would have to amend the Constitution.
Obviously unconstitutional. the Constitution sets the requirements to be a Senator or a Representative. To change them you would have to amend the Constitution.
He is talking about defining by legislation (which can be done) "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" to include declaring a sanctuary city.
There is not a ton of jurisprudence on that part of the 14th outside of civil war cases, so it could probably be done.
He is talking about defining by legislation (which can be done) "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" to include declaring a sanctuary city.
There is not a ton of jurisprudence on that part of the 14th outside of civil war cases, so it could probably be done.
You can't. Courts will throw it out. Words mean what they mean. If the legislature could change the meaning of words the constitution becomes meaningless. You just define citizen as Caucasian male property owners over 55.
You can't. Courts will throw it out. Words mean what they mean. If the legislature could change the meaning of words the constitution becomes meaningless. You just define citizen as Caucasian male property owners over 55.
Funny, the Left somehow found rights for abortion and same-sex marriage in the 14th Amendment. Why can't we find a way, with Trump's new Supreme Court, to interpret Section 3?
Funny, the Left somehow found rights for abortion and same-sex marriage in the 14th Amendment. Why can't we find a way, with Trump's new Supreme Court, to interpret Section 3?
I'm sorry you dont like being told you are wrong, but as prior posters have pointed out you are wrong.
And congress has LOTS of power they can exert over groups involved without trying this sort of nonsense. Defund their police force subsidies for example, up to and including finding people that ignore them to be in contempt of congress, and arrested. With Federal assistance if necessary.
Do it slow, and carefully, and dont make any stupid mistakes that get folks shot.
But thats even assuming that sanctuary cities dont cave from any pressure put on them. Shrug, refuse to process tax returns from anyone living in the area. Suddenly if they move, they get a nice tax return. Or...if their city stops doing this sort of nonsense they all get their tax returns back. Give it a 10 year timeline. Thus the only thing happening technically is tax returns are being deferred for the area while illegal activity is occurring.
Lots of options available. Kinda says the central government has gotten to powerful.
You can't. Courts will throw it out. Words mean what they mean. If the legislature could change the meaning of words the constitution becomes meaningless. You just define citizen as Caucasian male property owners over 55.
Of course you can define words in a law. Every law congress makes is full of dozens of definitions.
As a quick example, citizen has been redefined by law repeatedly over our countries history without constitutional amendment. Every year we redefine citizen by administrative rule even and no one takes it to court.
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.