BREAKING: Trump says he’s going to overturn the 14th Amendment with an executive order.

[Neil N. Blowme]

I see you can't provide your evidence. Unsurprising to say the least.

You made a claim. Since you can't back it up with any evidence, we can assume your claim is false.

Whatever, loser.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

False

Prove it.

 

[Damocles]

Let's examine your argument about the Native Americans. Native Americans were on reservations. Those reservations were in some cases located within states. But the reservations were overseen by the federal government. The states had no power on those reservations. The state could not go onto the reservation and arrest anyone.

The 14th amendment makes the persons born in a state a citizen of that state.
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.
Were Native Americans residents of the states or territories where they resided at the time of the 14th amendment? Were they subject to the laws of those states? Were they subject to Federal laws and judged by federal courts when it came to crimes?

Dakota War of 1862 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you tell us why if the Native Americans were subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States and the state of Minnesota why they were not tried in state of Federal courts before being executed.

Because they violated their rights...

Before the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 Native Americans were tried in US courts. Though their status was "complex" and they often were "wards of the state" (because they needed a champion you know and since they weren't citizens they needed to be a ward of someone) they certainly faced trials. That they didn't there was simply jackwipes violating the rights of folks, which seemed to regularly happen. It's like pretending black folks that were lynched were lynched because they were not citizens, even the free ones that were actual citizens... seriously. You must simply disregard what they meant and pretend that you just don't understand things in order to get where you are. They were subject to the laws of the United States, and were tried and convicted of crimes inside these same states even before 1924, however they were not citizens until June 2, 1924. Up until that point the 14th Amendment's requirement of "jurisdiction" is what stopped them from citizenship birth just transferring to them.

 

[Sailor]

You must have been a hit in jr high, calling everyone smarter than you names. I guess that meant you were calling everyone names. It's too bad you never got over being 13 years old.

Never any rational or fact based answers from you. Just incoherent bullshit.

 

[Into the Night]

If the word jurisprudence assumes allegiance then the 14th amendment becomes complete nonsense and no state would be required to give equal protection to the citizens of other states. The arguments you are making are complete nonsense and no court could possible accept them without blowing up 200 years of US legal precedence.

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.

But then when we look at the other times jurisdiction is used in the Constitution it makes even less sense for jurisdiction to mean allegiance.

From Art IV section 2
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

If a citizen of Florida commits a crime in New York and then flees to Pennsylvania, which state would the person be delivered to during extradition? The crime has no allegiance. The only way jurisdiction makes sense in all uses is if it is territorial and not allegiance.

I suggest you look at the other times that the word jurisdiction is used in the Constitution and try changing the word to allegiance and see how ridiculous your argument becomes.

The allegiance of a State determines whether the 'crime' took place, dummy.

 

[Into the Night]

Birthright citizenship has been settled law a lot longer than Roe versus Wade was. They chipped away at Roe versus Wade for decades before they overturned it.

But it is true, it’s a small chance the ruling could be overturned.

Birthright citizenship has been around as long as the Constitution, Pretender. It does not confer citizenship on illegal aliens or their children.

 

[Into the Night]

You can take a baby right to citizenship away simply because their parents committed a crime.

They might leave with their deported parents, but they are still a citizen.

The child of illegal aliens is not a citizen of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

You ignore that Native Americans were not subject to the laws of states or the US government. They did not have the legal rights of citizens.

Dakota War of 1862 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tell us if Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts in 1862 in Minnesota.

They are subject to the laws of the United States. This occurred through treaty.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Because they violated their rights...

Before the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 Native Americans were tried in US courts. Though their status was "complex" and they often were "wards of the state" (because they needed a champion you know and since they weren't citizens they needed to be a ward of someone) they certainly faced trials. That they didn't there was simply jackwipes violating the rights of folks, which seemed to regularly happen. It's like pretending black folks that were lynched were lynched because they were not citizens, even the free ones that were actual citizens... seriously. You must simply disregard what they meant and pretend that you just don't understand things in order to get where you are. They were subject to the laws of the United States, and were tried and convicted of crimes inside these same states even before 1924, however they were not citizens until June 2, 1924. Up until that point the 14th Amendment's requirement of "jurisdiction" is what stopped them from citizenship birth just transferring to them.

Can you provide us evidence of Native Americans on reservations being subject to state laws prior to 1924?
How about the evidence of them being subject to federal laws and tried in a federal court with the right to appeal.

I suggest you look at Elk V Wilkens (1884) first. It specifically excludes those born on a reservation from being citizens. It goes all the way back to the original Constitution to talk about "Indians not taxed" as the basis of why they are not citizens. They are exempt from state taxes so not under state jurisdiction. They can be naturalized but are not citizens based on birth.

Then if we go to Cherokee v Georgia. (1831)
Though without land that they can call theirs in the sense of property,their right of personal self-government has never been taken from them, and such a form of government may exist though the land occupied be in fact that of another.

Clearly Indians had the right of self governance. Then there is the fact that only Congress can regulate the trade with Indians.

 

[Sailor]

Can you provide us evidence of Native Americans on reservations being subject to state laws prior to 1924?
How about the evidence of them being subject to federal laws and tried in a federal court with the right to appeal.

I suggest you look at Elk V Wilkens (1884) first. It specifically excludes those born on a reservation from being citizens. It goes all the way back to the original Constitution to talk about "Indians not taxed" as the basis of why they are not citizens. They are exempt from state taxes so not under state jurisdiction. They can be naturalized but are not citizens based on birth.

Then if we go to Cherokee v Georgia. (1831)
Though without land that they can call theirs in the sense of property,their right of personal self-government has never been taken from them, and such a form of government may exist though the land occupied be in fact that of another.

Clearly Indians had the right of self governance. Then there is the fact that only Congress can regulate the trade with Indians.

God almighty do you sling bullshit. And you certainly are dumber than fuck. Are native Americans born on a reservation since 1924 United States Citizens. Lets see if we can keep this simple for you.

 

[Damocles]

Can you provide us evidence of Native Americans on reservations being subject to state laws prior to 1924?
How about the evidence of them being subject to federal laws and tried in a federal court with the right to appeal.

I suggest you look at Elk V Wilkens (1884) first. It specifically excludes those born on a reservation from being citizens. It goes all the way back to the original Constitution to talk about "Indians not taxed" as the basis of why they are not citizens. They are exempt from state taxes so not under state jurisdiction. They can be naturalized but are not citizens based on birth.

Then if we go to Cherokee v Georgia. (1831)
Though without land that they can call theirs in the sense of property,their right of personal self-government has never been taken from them, and such a form of government may exist though the land occupied be in fact that of another.

Clearly Indians had the right of self governance. Then there is the fact that only Congress can regulate the trade with Indians.

My point was that when they were not on the reservation their kids were not considered citizens unless they had sworn allegiance to the US and rejected their citizenship in the tribe, in fact I was pointing out that they were often tried for crimes committed off the reservation but still were not counted as "under the jurisdiction" because of the reasons previously assigned...

You do realize that often they were born off reservation but were still not citizens because the Amendment's "jurisdiction" clause was specifically included to ensure that they were not citizens when that happened. Since they held allegiance to the native American nation rather than the US, even though when they committed a crime in the US they were held to account for it, they were not given birthright citizenship regardless of the fact that they were born off the rez (or in the US, in that case)...

My point wasn't that they were considered in a different nation on the reservation, my point was that when they were not on the reservation it didn't make their kids into citizens... even when they were born off the reservation, to obtain that citizenship they needed a specific act passed.

 

[Magats_Love_NHB]

 

[EdwinA]

The Act of 1924 made native Americans made them citizens of the U.S. and of the state they reside in. Tribes also aren't taxed by either the state or the U.S. on money earned or made on the reservation; it is considered a separate nation.

18 U.S. Code § 1151 - Indian country defined

www.law.cornell.edu

They also have a unique tax status:

Native Americans and Taxes: How It Works

Taxes for Native Americans are slightly different from those for other U.S. citizens. While they pay federal income tax, there are exemptions for some forms of income, and tribes set their own sales taxes.

www.investopedia.com

The Act also made them subject to Federal income taxes. On the other hand, the tribes income was exempt. Several court cases involved confusion on whether such incomes were taxable by the U.S.

Big Eagle v. United States | Tax Notes

www.taxnotes.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

Almost all males living in the US whether citizens or immigrants must register for the draft, and all can be legally drafted.

False and deliberately so in regard to illegals.

The major exception is the opposite of being here illegally. If you can prove a non-immigrant visa, you can get out of the draft. Notice that it requires a provable visa.

You are flat out lying. Illegals cannot be drafted, nor can diplomats or any person not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

With the people applying for asylum, as part of the asylum process they must register for the draft. If they are a male between the ages of 18 and 25, and fail to register for the draft, their asylum case fails immediately. There is no way to get the hoped for parole.

Bullshit. Nothing is even reviewed until the court hearing, which generally takes years to happen and 90% of the supposed asylum seekers never show up. It's all a scam to create an open border.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really are the dumbest motherfucker on the board, Douche Duck.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Act of 1924 made native Americans made them citizens of the U.S. and of the state they reside in. Tribes also aren't taxed by either the state or the U.S. on money earned or made on the reservation; it is considered a separate nation.

18 U.S. Code § 1151 - Indian country defined

www.law.cornell.edu

They also have a unique tax status:

Native Americans and Taxes: How It Works

Taxes for Native Americans are slightly different from those for other U.S. citizens. While they pay federal income tax, there are exemptions for some forms of income, and tribes set their own sales taxes.

www.investopedia.com

The Act also made them subject to Federal income taxes. On the other hand, the tribes income was exempt. Several court cases involved confusion on whether such incomes were taxable by the U.S.

Big Eagle v. United States | Tax Notes

www.taxnotes.com

The democrats lie about this because it utterly destroys their birthright citizenship claims.

 

[EdwinA]

So how many illegal have you sponsored?

 

[Into the Night]

Can you provide us evidence of Native Americans on reservations being subject to state laws prior to 1924?

They are not subject to State law. It is federal law they are subject to.

How about the evidence of them being subject to federal laws and tried in a federal court with the right to appeal.

Since 1850. See the Indian Appropriations Act.

I suggest you look at Elk V Wilkens (1884) first. It specifically excludes those born on a reservation from being citizens. It goes all the way back to the original Constitution to talk about "Indians not taxed" as the basis of why they are not citizens. They are exempt from state taxes so not under state jurisdiction. They can be naturalized but are not citizens based on birth.

Then if we go to Cherokee v Georgia. (1831)
Though without land that they can call theirs in the sense of property,their right of personal self-government has never been taken from them, and such a form of government may exist though the land occupied be in fact that of another.

Clearly Indians had the right of self governance. Then there is the fact that only Congress can regulate the trade with Indians.

They still have the right of self governance. They are also citizens of the United States.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Never any rational or fact based answers from you. Just incoherent bullshit.

It's interesting that you think the Supreme Court ruling that said states can't use the 14th amendment to prevent persons from running for office is incoherent bullshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

My point was that when they were not on the reservation their kids were not considered citizens unless they had sworn allegiance to the US and rejected their citizenship in the tribe, in fact I was pointing out that they were often tried for crimes committed off the reservation but still were not counted as "under the jurisdiction" because of the reasons previously assigned...

You do realize that often they were born off reservation but were still not citizens because the Amendment's "jurisdiction" clause was specifically included to ensure that they were not citizens when that happened. Since they held allegiance to the native American nation rather than the US, even though when they committed a crime in the US they were held to account for it, they were not given birthright citizenship regardless of the fact that they were born off the rez (or in the US, in that case)...

My point wasn't that they were considered in a different nation on the reservation, my point was that when they were not on the reservation it didn't make their kids into citizens... even when they were born off the reservation, to obtain that citizenship they needed a specific act passed.

From Elk v Wilkins

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States,members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

The fourteenth amendment makes them a separate group from foreigners since foreigners would be taxes on property they own. Elk also makes it clear that the only foreigners not subject to the jurisdiction are foreigners born in other countries and children of ambassadors within the US.