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.
You do realize that it takes two thirds of the congress and over two thirds of the states to change a constitutional amendment. Not surprising that you must have dosed off in high school civics.
What's even more surprising is that you don't know the role of SCOTUS. SCOTUS NEVER made ANY ruling on visitors or illegals concerning the 14th. It's time they do.
What's even more surprising is that you don't know the role of SCOTUS. SCOTUS NEVER made ANY ruling on visitors or illegals concerning the 14th. It's time they do.
Its irrelevant to the point. Trump can not change an amendment with a executive order period. Its pretty funny though you conservatives talk a big game about the constitution and yet they don't even know how to pass a constitutional amendment. SAD!
You've probably noticed by now that leftists who want illegal aliens to become legal and vote Democrat, keep misquoting the Constitution like this.
Because I am NOT a Constitutional lawyer, I'm just kinda rolling with the fact on how the Constitution is currently enforced and executed right NOW as the determination of validity and interpretation.
Until it is taken up with proper authorities to see if it should be changed.
It's a case of "I'll watch what they do, and I don't care what you say."
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Its not there and you are just showing that you fabricated the quote and now can't link to it because it doesn't exist. Unbelievable.
I have read the debates between the drafters of the 14th Amendment and I know what they said - and what they did not. None of them ever said visitors and illegal immigrants were excepted. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Indeed, Sen. Conness noted that the 14th Amendment sought "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States." (emphasis mine). Senator Trumbull likewise confirmed it and pointed out that anyone who gives birth "if they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens".
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"All persons born" seems pretty straight-forward. I wonder how those that believe in the 'originalism' viewpoint of the Constitution would interpret this clause? What did they mean by 'All persons born'?
In short, President Trump cannot amend the meaning of the Constitution by executive order. I happen to agree that the Constitution should be amended so that 'anchor babies' (meaning, those whose parents are not US citizens) are not citizens simply due to the fact that they were born within our borders. If one parent is a citizen, fine. If both are not, then no citizenship for the child.
But such can only be by amending the Constitution.
No amendment is needed. Here's why:
The meaning can clearly be determined by going back to the original arguments. That's what an "originalist" does. In doing that, we learn that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure that the children of freed slaves were granted all rights and privileges of citizenship. The drafters of that amendment made it clear that this amendment in no way intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens, ambassadors or foreign ministers, or any other visitors to the United States.
By looking at the words, "All persons born" only (as you have done), and concluding that they should be taken literally and that they stand alone, is dishonest. It's why we get into so much trouble today in any Constitutional argument. Liberals are unwilling to learn the context and true intent of anything in the Constitution. They take everything at face value only.
Actually, they have. Elk v. Wilkins. No 14th Amendment birthright citizenship due to owing allegiance to other than the US at birth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Why are people on the left so ignorant?
The exceptions to birthright citizenship have been for...
1) Foreign diplomats.
2) Foreign occupiers currently at war with the United States.
3) Indians not-taxed(until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
The idea in all three cases, is that these three groups fall outside of US jurisdiction. Basically, our laws either do not apply to them at all, or do not apply fully(because of various treaties/agreements/state of war/etc).
The exceptions to birthright citizenship have been for...
1) Foreign diplomats.
2) Foreign occupiers currently at war with the United States.
3) Indians not-taxed(until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
The idea in all three cases, is that these three groups fall outside of US jurisdiction. Basically, our laws either do not apply to them at all, or do not apply fully(because of various treaties/agreements/state of war/etc).
The "allegiance at birth" argument is irreconcilable with the US v. Wong Kim Ark case. There, the Plaintiff's parents were both "subjects of the Emperor of China" and could neither resign their status as subjects of the Emperor nor ever naturalize as American citizens due to the naturalization laws that existed at the time. But their son, born in the United States? Citizen.
You do realize that it takes two thirds of the congress and over two thirds of the states to change a constitutional amendment. Not surprising that you must have dosed off in high school civics.
no-one is changing an amendment... just finally having the DEFINING LAW (through EO, or through a congressional bill)
Its irrelevant to the point. Trump can not change an amendment with a executive order period. Its pretty funny though you conservatives talk a big game about the constitution and yet they don't even know how to pass a constitutional amendment. SAD!
really
then explain...
Eighteenth Amendment (ie part of the constitution) to the United States Constitution prohibited the production, sale, and transport of "intoxicating liquors", it did not define "intoxicating liquors" or provide penalties.
CONGRESS had to come up with a law that defined both
so congress came up with the Volstead act, which defined both
btw The National Prohibition Act, known informally as the Volstead Act, was passed by congress and upheld by the supreme court ... yet 12 years later.. the act and the CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT were abolished
no-one is changing an amendment... just finally having the DEFINING LAW (through EO, or through a congressional bill)
But the problem is this: There is no plausible explanation that justifies defining the term "subject to the jurisdiction" to exclude illegal aliens. None.
I believe this is just red meat to charge up the base before the midterms, but if Trump actually passed an Executive Order defining it in such a way, I don't think the Supreme Court would review it. I think the District Court would issue a TRO and eventually strike it down, the Circuit Court would affirm, and the Supreme Court would deny cert. Its too obviously unconstitutional.
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.
