Jarod says that the immigration ban is unconstitutional; but can't explain why.

USFREEDOM911

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Jarod says that the immigration ban is unconstitutional; but can't explain why.

Grind posted the following:
TEllrAz.png

And Jarod replied with:
Did you know that the constitution supersedes federal law?

Grind then questioned Jarod's reply:
what part of the constitution limits the executive branch re: illegal aliens and border control?

To which Jarod declared:
Many parts, one that comes to mind right away is the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

I then asked him the following question and provided a copy of the 14th amendment, to make it easier for him to prove his point:
Care to point out, in detail, the "many parts"??

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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.
Section 2.
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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
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.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

He has yet to point out anything that supports his claim; but what he has done is attempt to be a wordsmith, while "discussing" the ban with Damo.

Why is it so hard for him to point out how the ban is in violation of the 14th Amendment?
 
I have not. Its clear that parts only apply to citizens and others apply to all people within the jurisdiction of the United States.

now damn it jarod. I like you but you seriously have to remove your cranium from your sphincter. stop being like most of these other proles and READ the constitution for what it is and what it does.

the US Constitution does not apply itself against the people, it applies itself against the federal government. The US Constitution is what created the federal government and it provided very clear and limited enumerated powers. EVERYTHING ELSE belongs to the people and the states.
 
now damn it jarod. I like you but you seriously have to remove your cranium from your sphincter. stop being like most of these other proles and READ the constitution for what it is and what it does.

the US Constitution does not apply itself against the people, it applies itself against the federal government. The US Constitution is what created the federal government and it provided very clear and limited enumerated powers. EVERYTHING ELSE belongs to the people and the states.

Ok, I will use your semantics, the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from action in some circumstances that affects non-citizens.
 
Ok, I will use your semantics, the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from action in some circumstances that affects non-citizens.

and you still miss the issue. what part of the constitution specifies that only THAT part applies to citizens?
 
Jarod says that the immigration ban is unconstitutional; but can't explain why.

Grind posted the following:


And Jarod replied with:


Grind then questioned Jarod's reply:


To which Jarod declared:


I then asked him the following question and provided a copy of the 14th amendment, to make it easier for him to prove his point:


He has yet to point out anything that supports his claim; but what he has done is attempt to be a wordsmith, while "discussing" the ban with Damo.

Why is it so hard for him to point out how the ban is in violation of the 14th Amendment?

Ironic, isn't it, how USF whines about Jarod not answering him...

:rofl2:
 
"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."

Step One...

Lets start with a simple one... Look at this portion of the 14th Amendment. Can you see where the writer discusses "Citizens" in one part and "any person" in another? Do you think that was an accident? Then again later do you see where another category is identified namely "any person within its (the United States) jurisdiction..."

You see, above three different classes of people were discussed and some their of rights as guaranteed under the Constitution were enumerated. Lots of the people listed are not citizens.
 
"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."

Step One...

Lets start with a simple one... Look at this portion of the 14th Amendment. Can you see where the writer discusses "Citizens" in one part and "any person" in another? Do you think that was an accident? Then again later do you see where another category is identified namely "any person within its (the United States) jurisdiction..."

You see, above three different classes of people were discussed and some their of rights as guaranteed under the Constitution were enumerated. Lots of the people listed are not citizens.

Are you ignoring this, which is at the beginning of the 14th?
"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."
 
Are you ignoring this, which is at the beginning of the 14th?
"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, why would that change anything?
 
That portion that discusses any person specifically speaks of jurisdiction. People in Iran are not within the jurisdiction of the United States, Jarod. Amendment 14 would not apply here.
 
No, why would that change anything?

Because it destroys your comment of:

Lets start with a simple one... Look at this portion of the 14th Amendment. Can you see where the writer discusses "Citizens" in one part and "any person" in another? Do you think that was an accident? Then again later do you see where another category is identified namely "any person within its (the United States) jurisdiction..."
 
start with a simple one... Look at this portion of the 14th Amendment. Can you see where the writer discusses "Citizens" in one part and "any person" in another? Do you think that was an accident? Then again later do you see where another category is identified namely "any person within its (the United States) jurisdiction



They are not in our jurisdiction, they are where ever beyond our shores they happen to be. At a minimum they would need to be on a military base with a plane and a runway.
 
"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."

Step One...

Lets start with a simple one... Look at this portion of the 14th Amendment. Can you see where the writer discusses "Citizens" in one part and "any person" in another? Do you think that was an accident? Then again later do you see where another category is identified namely "any person within its (the United States) jurisdiction..."

You see, above three different classes of people were discussed and some their of rights as guaranteed under the Constitution were enumerated. Lots of the people listed are not citizens.

this is where you fail. this statement does not EXCLUDE non citizens, it merely codifies that SPECIFICALLY citizens shall not be deprived. You still don't seem to understand what the constitution is supposed to do.
 
That portion that discusses any person specifically speaks of jurisdiction. People in Iran are not within the jurisdiction of the United States, Jarod. Amendment 14 would not apply here.

and this is mostly true, as far as it states that the US government can't have any authority or power over someone in iran, or thailand, or gitmo because they are not in the jurisdictional territory of the USA.
 
Back
Top