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.
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
I know.... They have gutted the 1st amendment without an amendment
They have gutted the 2nd amendment, without an amendment
They have gutted the 4th amendment, without an amendment
They have gutted the 5th amendment, without an amendment
They have stomped on the 9th amendment to gut the 10th amendment
So why stop there. Lets gut the 14th amendment, without an amendment.
I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it is actually the truth. The state of New Jersey was denied its Article V representation in the Senate. And that was after all the southern delegates were kicked out, and the south was placed under a military dictatorship, and their voting rights stripped away.
The 14th and 15th amendment was not about granting citizenship/rights to blacks out of any sense of justice. It was about power. Granting blacks a right to vote, was because the Republicans believed the freed blacks would vote for Republicans(IE the people who freed them). It was about politics, not justice.
If anyone is actually pro-Constitution, they would support the repeal of all amendments passed illegally.
As the New Jersey Congress said when they attempted to rescind their ratification of the illegal 14th amendment....
"That it being necessary, by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."
Regardless, politics aren't about honesty or integrity. Politics are about power. We don't actually live under the Constitution, we live under the "Living-document theory". Which in practice means that we live under a Judicial oligarchy.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by blind melon
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
No. He just wants to change the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. However, the next time a Left Winger says the same thing, I dont wan to see Conservatives calling them traitors and every other name in the book other than a child of God.
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
Actually, yours is the faulty logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
The 14th amendment never did give birthright citizenship to babies born here to illegals.
The amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause was introduced by Senator Howard, who said that jurisdiction would NOT apply to the babies of foreigners, aliens and diplomats.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, passed just after the Civil War, was to give citizenship to former slaves.
Illegal immigrant activists and their many lawyer friends would have you believe that "subject to the jurisdiction of" merely means being in this country and subject to its laws. But if you're born in this country, that is already the case, so there is no need to add the clause unless it means something else.
Senator Howard spelled out the meaning: Babies born here to non-U.S. citizens who are citizens of other countries (foreigners, aliens, diplomats) are not subject to our jurisdiction, but to the jurisdiction of those other countries to which they owe their loyalty as citizens.
Exactly.
In interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court has often recognized the rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." E.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 201, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480, 99 S. Ct. 2721 (1979) (quoting Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 36 L. Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892)).
The 14th Amendment does not apply to "anchor babies."
There is also the issue of "absurd results":
In recognizing the principle that a statute's language and purpose may at time differ, the Court has stated guidelines for reconciling the two:
There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
See: United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).
The SCOTUS needs to be reminded that they too are bound by the Constitution.
Certainly yes.
They are not the Legislative Branch to rewrite Law.
If it is no-constitutional it needs to end or go back to Congress to scrap or change it to conform with the Constitution.
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.
