HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Did I say that Obama tried to "change the Constitution via executive order", Zappacrite?
Now, dance, and claim that I did.
Dance to my tune.
Dance!
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
He can't dance, he's got the diabetes. I'm shocked he's still alive.
I have provided contemporaneous evidence of the original intent in this thread.
Zappacrite and Brad both say Trump can't do it. If that's true, then you have nothing to worry about, do you, cum gargler?
I can read where those that wrote the 14th didn't intend for it to be used in the manner you say is OK to use it.
Do you support the 2nd amendment AS WRITTEN?
This article says nothing supporting the intentions of those writing and voting for the 14th Amendment. It only tells us the opinion of Gerald Walpin who lists a few Supreme Court opinions but omits those cases which supporting the long established view to the contrary.
Also, forget the 14th Amendment, look at current naturalization law passed by Congress which grants citizenship to those born here.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
While I can't speak for my fellow JPP liberals, I can say quite clearly I am excited for Trump to try changing the 14th by executive fiat.
The party who whines constantly about how the 2nd amendment can't be changed in any way, now cheers when the President announces he's going to take the CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL action of changing an amendment to the constitution via executive order.
Just Trump's announcement of his ignorant plan is going to swing more voters over the line and have them voting Democrat next week.
So is "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. Why do you ignore it and claim to support what is written in the Constitution?
That is a pretty funny opinion piece, it basically comes down to does "all mean all," reminiscent of how one defines "is," which conservatives as yourself thought was ridiculous at the time.
Bottom line, no matter how the Trumpkins frame it, it can not be done with an EO, to suggest such is ludicrous
At issue is the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” As the Supreme Court held in the Slaughterhouse Cases shortly after the adoption of that amendment, the main purpose “was to establish the citizenship of the negro,” who, while recently freed in the Civil War, “were still not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.” No one has ever suggested that the three civil rights amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) would have been adopted, absent the need to give citizenship and protection to blacks.
Even more relevant, and totally ignored in the current discussion, is that, while the 14th Amendment reads “all persons born in the United States” are citizens, it has never been disputed that “all” never meant “all.” In 1873, less than five years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of that citizenship provision by considering the facts surrounding the adoption of the 14th Amendment, “almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all.” The court concluded, without dissent on this point, that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
If that had remained the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue, there would be no need for a new amendment to deny citizenship to children of illegal aliens. But more than a quarter-century later - when the members of the Supreme Court no longer claimed personal knowledge of the events leading up to the 14th Amendment - the court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, spoke again on this issue. It first reaffirmed that “all” in the 14th Amendment did not mean “all.” It recognized exclusions: A child born in the United States to a member of an Indian tribe, or to ministers or consul of a foreign government, or to alien enemies in hostile occupation, was not a U.S. citizen. The reason for these exceptions was that such parents did not owe this country “direct and immediate allegiance.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/24/14th-amendment-never-meant-for-illegals/
**************
All this got distorted in the '60's.
Even more relevant, and totally ignored in the current discussion, is that, while the 14th Amendment reads “all persons born in the United States” are citizens, it has never been disputed that “all” never meant “all.” In 1873, less than five years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of that citizenship provision by considering the facts surrounding the adoption of the 14th Amendment, “almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all.” The court concluded, without dissent on this point, that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
If that had remained the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue, there would be no need for a new amendment to deny citizenship to children of illegal aliens. But more than a quarter-century later - when the members of the Supreme Court no longer claimed personal knowledge of the events leading up to the 14th Amendment - the court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, spoke again on this issue. It first reaffirmed that “all” in the 14th Amendment did not mean “all.” It recognized exclusions: A child born in the United States to a member of an Indian tribe, or to ministers or consul of a foreign government, or to alien enemies in hostile occupation, was not a U.S. citizen. The reason for these exceptions was that such parents did not owe this country “direct and immediate allegiance.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/24/14th-amendment-never-meant-for-illegals/
**************
All this got distorted in the '60's.
Trump wouldn't be changing the Constitution and the 14th only apply it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to apply.
floridafan
Verified User
Rest assured my dear, that Trump has absolutely no desire to change the 14th amendment, nor will he even try. This is just one more feeble attempt to stir up his base a week before an election
If that's so, then you have nothing to be concerned about, do you, anchovies?
Think so? Are you sure, cum gargler?
"Shall not be infringed" is not stand alone, it is dependent on the prefatory clause, in simple terms, it would be like a kid's mother saying,"if you clean up your room, I will owe you an allowance." That doesn't mean the kid is automatically owed the allowence, but the allowence is dependent upon him cleaning his room, the prefatory clause. Same logic applies to "shall not be infringed"
The left's argument about Trump changing the Constitution if false. He's applying it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to be applied.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.
The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."