You can't make this stuff up! Trump claims 14th Amendment is unconstitutional...

[whitepug6]

The money quote: "It's not going to hold up in court."

Republicans, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate this man for the presidency! It will guarantee the Democratic Party the political loyalty of Latin people for generations to come.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-14th-amendment-is-127077752761.html

 

[FeralDawg]

After the way they repaid Reagan after his big amnesty?
Loyalty from Latinos? Please. They are humans just like the rest of us.
You want to give em cigarettes and liquor like Huey P. Long?
Go right ahead. Give them a country they can make money in legally
and they will vote for a qualified candidate instead of people like Barry, Trump or Hitlery.
The excesses of the far left is what has created this ridiculous pendulum swing. I've told my lib friends for a few years now that these policies are creating an ugly far right reaction by skipping over the rule of law here, making congress a neutered entity, and creating this culture of pandering to easily offended tiny minorities of wackos like trannies, black miltant hate groups, and illegals demanding equal rights to citizens. The regular joes can hardly see straight for all this stupidity and blatant law-breaking from the ruling elite. We are either a nation of laws or we are nothing.
And you who seems to quote laws so much seem only notice the ones you like to adhere to. Sort of like religious nuts that only practice the parts they like to preach about. Sucks though to see what is being created from a Constitutional Republic. Obama has almost guaranteed that the President can pass whatever law and policy he wants. I can almost hear the howls of rage when a whack job like Trump takes over next. Just glad it won't be Hitlery no matter what.

 

[whitepug6]

After the way they repaid Reagan after his big amnesty?
Loyalty from Latinos? Please. They are humans just like the rest of us.
You want to give em cigarettes and liquor like Huey P. Long?
Go right ahead. Give them a country they can make money in legally
and they will vote for a qualified candidate instead of people like Barry, Trump or Hitlery.
The excesses of the far left is what has created this ridiculous pendulum swing. I've told my lib friends for a few years now that these policies are creating an ugly far right reaction by skipping over the rule of law here, making congress a neutered entity, and creating this culture of pandering to easily offended tiny minorities of wackos like trannies, black miltant hate groups, and illegals demanding equal rights to citizens. The regular joes can hardly see straight for all this stupidity and blatant law-breaking from the ruling elite. We are either a nation of laws or we are nothing.
And you who seems to quote laws so much seem only notice the ones you like to adhere to. Sort of like religious nuts that only practice the parts they like to preach about. Sucks though to see what is being created from a Constitutional Republic. Obama has almost guaranteed that the President can pass whatever law and policy he wants. I can almost hear the howls of rage when a whack job like Trump takes over next. Just glad it won't be Hitlery no matter what.

Political loyalty is real. When a Democratic-led Congress passed a meaningful civil rights act and a voting rights act, and a Democratic president signed the legislation, it gained the Democratic Party the political loyalty of African-Americans. They used to vote Republican...that ended in 1964.

I pay attention to legal issues. Half of the illegal immigrant population in the US came here legally. People from 38 countries can visit the United States without a visa (it's a federal law called the Visa Waiver Program, passed by Congress), and people from almost any country can get a temporary work or school visa (also via federal law, passed by Congress). Short of creating a police state like that of North Korea, I don't see how the government can track every single foreign person once they set foot on US soil.

The far right lunatic fringe always bellows about some "reaction" whenever things don't go their way. The majority of the American people are not far right lunatics and are not susceptible to fear-mongering about gay marriage, immigration, or abortion. The culture war is over, and the right-wing lost. Some of you haven't figured that out yet.

And by the way, I know this is Political Science 101, but presidents do not pass laws or "policy". That is Congress' responsibility.

Those are not "howls of rage" regarding Trump---that's howling LAUGHTER.

And you are right about Hillary Clinton. She is likely to be indicted and tried.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Political loyalty is real. When a Democratic-led Congress passed a meaningful civil rights act and a voting rights act, and a Democratic president signed the legislation, it gained the Democratic Party the political loyalty of African-Americans. They used to vote Republican...that ended in 1964.

I pay attention to legal issues. Half of the illegal immigrant population in the US came here legally. People from 38 countries can visit the United States without a visa (it's a federal law called the Visa Waiver Program, passed by Congress), and people from almost any country can get a temporary work or school visa (also via federal law, passed by Congress). Short of creating a police state like that of North Korea, I don't see how the government can track every single foreign person once they set foot on US soil.

The far right lunatic fringe always bellows about some "reaction" whenever things don't go their way. The majority of the American people are not far right lunatics and are not susceptible to fear-mongering about gay marriage, immigration, or abortion. The culture war is over, and the right-wing lost. Some of you haven't figured that out yet.

And by the way, I know this is Political Science 101, but presidents do not pass laws or "policy". That is Congress' responsibility.

Those are not "howls of rage" regarding Trump---that's howling LAUGHTER.

And you are right about Hillary Clinton. She is likely to be indicted and tried.

I agree presidents do not ass laws or policy, You should remind obama about that. He seems to think he can do what he wants, and has gotten away with it for over seven years now..
He has the same regard for the Constitution as he has for the US military, none whatsoever.

 

[whitepug6]

I agree presidents do not ass laws or policy, You should remind obama about that. He seems to think he can do what he wants, and has gotten away with it for over seven years now..
He has the same regard for the Constitution as he has for the US military, none whatsoever.

Could you provide some specific examples of the President's disregard for the Constitution and the military?

 

[FeralDawg]

I have a pen and a phone if you want an example of the disregard
for the Constitution. His ideas are that the Presidential authority supersedes that of the will of the people.
The far left lunatic fringe can laugh at the Donald but he is changing the way the issues are addressed. Laughing or howling, I fear it's NOT for the better of ourselves but so be it.
And remember I laughed at the idea of a skinny little malcontent community organizer being re-elected after showing little or no responsibility for the betterment of our country's standing. Looked like
I underestimated the gullibility of the American people.
As for providing examples.....
Here are a few examples of Obama’s disregard.

■ Used executive privilege with the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. When government misconduct is the concern, executive privilege is negated.

■ At least 23 executive orders on gun control – infringements of the Second Amendment

■ Issued an executive order bypassing Congress on immigration. Legislative power is held by Congress.

■ Executive Order 13524 gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

■ DOMA Law — Obama directed the Department of Justice to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law.

■ Drone strikes on American citizens — Fifth Amendment due process rights negated

■ Appointing agency czars without the “advice and consent of the Senate.” A violation of Article II, Section 2.

■ The Obamacare mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court had to make it a tax because there is no constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce.

■ Refuses to acknowledge a state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare

■ Going after states (the Arizona lawsuit) for upholding federal law (immigration).

■ With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of Internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

■ The Senate/Obama immigration bill raises revenue. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

 

[brad81]

OH crap! Facts Dems dont like them

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Could you provide some specific examples of the President's disregard for the Constitution and the military?

Here is a list for you below:
1)Using the IRS to target conservative organizations
2)ordering criminal investigations on Fox news reporters during the 2012 election year
3) refusing to enforce the immigration laws had over 300k captured illegal aliens that had been processed waiting for deportation, obama stopped the deportations and released them.
4) refused to build double barrier fence along southern border in direct violation of 2006 secure fence act. out of at least 650 miles required by law on 40 have been built.
5) Attack on the second amendment rights by allowing doctors to investigate which patients own guns. (not crazies, but everyone.)
6)Assault on religious freedom. forcing Catholic churches to provide birth control to it's employees. which goes against their beliefs.
7) passing obama care through bribery and lying about cost, and keeping your current plans if you want.
8) Fast and Furious put semi-auto rifles in the hands of drug cartels and did not track the weapons as required.1 border agent was killed by 1 of these illegal guns.
9) Regulated the internet through the FCC, despite a court order from the circuit of appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the internet
10) EPA imposed cross state air pollution rules on the state of Texas at the last minute without an opportunity for Texas to respond to the proposed regulation.
11) DOJ- rejected state voter id statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme court of the U.S.
12) DOJ-In violation of the 10th amendment sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders.
13) DOJ- Went to court to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration reform laws.
14) White House Made "recess appointments" to the national labor relations board and Consumer Financial protection Bureau when congress was Not in recess. Ignoring the ruling by the D.C. circuit court of appeals that the appointments are unconstitutional
15) without congressional approval obama gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton
16) in the bailout of GM and Chrysler obama illegally shortchanged bond holders in favor of labor unions, despite US bankruptcy laws that specify that bond holders are the first in line to be paid back.
17) obama intervened militarily in Libya on 2011 without the congressional approval required by the war powers act.
18) obama knowingly lied to congress and the American people about the killing of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans (including two US SEALS) in Benghazi.
I have more but grew tired of typing!
These are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

 

[whitepug6]

I have a pen and a phone if you want an example of the disregard
for the Constitution. His ideas are that the Presidential authority supersedes that of the will of the people.
The far left lunatic fringe can laugh at the Donald but he is changing the way the issues are addressed. Laughing or howling, I fear it's NOT for the better of ourselves but so be it.
And remember I laughed at the idea of a skinny little malcontent community organizer being re-elected after showing little or no responsibility for the betterment of our country's standing. Looked like
I underestimated the gullibility of the American people.
As for providing examples.....
Here are a few examples of Obama’s disregard.

■ Used executive privilege with the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. When government misconduct is the concern, executive privilege is negated.

■ At least 23 executive orders on gun control – infringements of the Second Amendment

■ Issued an executive order bypassing Congress on immigration. Legislative power is held by Congress.

■ Executive Order 13524 gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

■ DOMA Law — Obama directed the Department of Justice to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law.

■ Drone strikes on American citizens — Fifth Amendment due process rights negated

■ Appointing agency czars without the “advice and consent of the Senate.” A violation of Article II, Section 2.

■ The Obamacare mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court had to make it a tax because there is no constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce.

■ Refuses to acknowledge a state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare

■ Going after states (the Arizona lawsuit) for upholding federal law (immigration).

■ With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of Internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

■ The Senate/Obama immigration bill raises revenue. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of executive privilege. JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all invoked executive privilege at one time or another.

President Obama has a constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". He clearly has the authority to order the Department of Justice to more comprehensively enforce the gun laws already passed by Congress or to enhance tracking of the paperwork related to the sale and registration of guns. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton actually implemented gun-control measures by executive orders pursuant to this authority, banning the importation of certain assault weapons under existing gun-control laws.

President Obama's executive order regarding immigration is in the federal courts now. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of his action.

You are greatly exaggerating the scope of Executive Order 13524. INTERPOL has no police force and does not conduct criminal investigations or make arrests. It is an administrative organization that helps international police forces share information and coordinate activities. If, for example, one country should issue an arrest warrant for a suspect currently residing in a second country, INTERPOL merely passes along the warrant and related information to the second country.

You are WRONG about President Obama's position regarding the DOMA. The Obama administration stated it would continue to enforce the law while it existed, but would not defend it in federal courts. It's a moot point, because the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2013.

Many American citizens have been killed by the US military as a result of accident or friendly fire. Funny how only President Obama gets blamed for it.

You are also WRONG about President Obama's appointments. The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2) states that officers of the United States must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. A position is an office if it is "invested by legal authority with a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal Government" and "continuing" in nature. Commissioned military officers and cabinet secretaries fall under this definition.

But Congress may also allow the president alone to appoint "inferior officers" -- advisers and directors often working in the White House who are not vetted or confirmed by the Senate. "Czars" fall into this category and their appointment does not require confirmation.

The Arizona lawsuit is a joke. The US Supreme Court has ruled in precedent that immigration policies are the province of the executive and legislative branches, not the states.

The US Supreme Court has ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional. So you're WRONG again.

You're also WRONG about the unconstitutionality of the FISA Act of 1978, specifically Section 702. It is certainly legal.

Any other WRONG bullcrap you would like me to educate you on?

 

[FeralDawg]

LOL! You can't sincerely believe ANY of what you just spouted!
You are a damn trip! Is this Chris Matthews?
All of it will come home to roost. You who seem to believe the rules are entirely enforceable when it involves our military and in only black and white terms and to the strictest adherance suddenly turns vague when it involves a personal hero? All the targeting of conservatives and rampant abuse of power that was done in the dark will come to light. Hillary is just the beginning. You asked for examples and you got it in spades.
You just can't handle facts. It all adds up, but you are blind.
Just start with point One- Fast and Furious cover-up. Never happened or excusable? I'm sure you'll go with excusable. That's who you are.
Rolo is correct to respond to you how he does. See how mad you get when you ask for ANY example? I gave you a ton. You don't want reasons. You got a pen and a phone?

 

[jenkinscreekdawg]

The Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of executive privilege. JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all invoked executive privilege at one time or another.

President Obama has a constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". He clearly has the authority to order the Department of Justice to more comprehensively enforce the gun laws already passed by Congress or to enhance tracking of the paperwork related to the sale and registration of guns. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton actually implemented gun-control measures by executive orders pursuant to this authority, banning the importation of certain assault weapons under existing gun-control laws.

President Obama's executive order regarding immigration is in the federal courts now. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of his action.

You are greatly exaggerating the scope of Executive Order 13524. INTERPOL has no police force and does not conduct criminal investigations or make arrests. It is an administrative organization that helps international police forces share information and coordinate activities. If, for example, one country should issue an arrest warrant for a suspect currently residing in a second country, INTERPOL merely passes along the warrant and related information to the second country.

You are WRONG about President Obama's position regarding the DOMA. The Obama administration stated it would continue to enforce the law while it existed, but would not defend it in federal courts. It's a moot point, because the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2013.

Many American citizens have been killed by the US military as a result of accident or friendly fire. Funny how only President Obama gets blamed for it.

You are also WRONG about President Obama's appointments. The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2) states that officers of the United States must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. A position is an office if it is "invested by legal authority with a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal Government" and "continuing" in nature. Commissioned military officers and cabinet secretaries fall under this definition.

But Congress may also allow the president alone to appoint "inferior officers" -- advisers and directors often working in the White House who are not vetted or confirmed by the Senate. "Czars" fall into this category and their appointment does not require confirmation.

The Arizona lawsuit is a joke. The US Supreme Court has ruled in precedent that immigration policies are the province of the executive and legislative branches, not the states.

The US Supreme Court has ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional. So you're WRONG again.

You're also WRONG about the unconstitutionality of the FISA Act of 1978, specifically Section 702. It is certainly legal.

Any other WRONG bullcrap you would like me to educate you on?

prez has a mandate to enforce the laws on the books, i guess he doesn't know that , immigration for example !

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Could you provide some specific examples of the President's disregard for the Constitution and the military?

For obamas military slights :
1) called the Fort Hood terrorist attack (carried out by a muslim) an act of work place violence. The soldiers that were killed or their families were stripped of any benefits they were owed by this decision.
2) After the killing of bin laden, obama released infromation about the mission for his own gain. You know in spec op missions you do not bring it into the open for the world to know how missions are carried out.
3) Behghazi-Two navy seals were told to stand down but disobeyed orders and saved at least 30 Americans from the embassy before being overrun and killled along with two other officials.
4) How about the crippling cuts in the defense budget, but we can give freely to illegal immigrants and welfare professionals.
5) showed his ignorance and disdain for the military when he pronounced a sailor as a corpse- man.
Just a few off the top of my head, there are many others unfortunately.

 

[CountryClubDawg]

The money quote: "It's not going to hold up in court."

Republicans, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate this man for the presidency! It will guarantee the Democratic Party the political loyalty of Latin people for generations to come.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-14th-amendment-is-127077752761.html

Your ignorance is astounding. You don't want the facts nor do you wish to face reality.

When was the last time, in regards to birthright citizenship, was the 14th Amendment challenged in court? I'll save you some time, its basically never been challenged, but please feel free to search your little heart out. I've posted the below before, but I'll post again because you clearly missed it or you wouldn't be showing your ignorance on the subject.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.” Everyone agrees with the basic concept of birthright citizenship as plainly stated in the first part of this clause. But in addition to the requirement that a child be born on American soil, the plain reading of the citizenship clause adds another requirement: “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” As we all know, there are no superfluous clauses in this tightly drafted document we call the U.S. Constitution. Clearly, the framers were drawing some limitation beyond simply being born on American soil.

Fortunately we need not speculate about their intent. The intent of the framers was crystal clear.
The purpose of this amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott case and ensure guaranteed citizenship to all former black slaves born in American, and likely living here for generations. At the same time they wanted to limit citizenship to those subject to our jurisdiction, which excludes those who are not legal permanent residents of this country and certainly illegal aliens.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the forerunner to the 14th Amendment, reads as follows: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Anyone who is here illegally or on a temporary visa is still subject to the jurisdiction of his or her own country of origin.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, explicitly said that candidates for citizenship must be born here AND not owe allegiance to another authority. He made it clear that allegiance "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." If we can be sure that even children of Indian tribes were excluded from automatic citizenship, certainly temporary visitors from foreign countries were meant to be excluded as well.

The notion that the framers of the 14th Amendment desired to include illegal aliens in birthright citizenship is not only contrary to the explicit language and context of the amendment, it is patently absurd.

If the author of the 14th meant that all persons born in the US were to become citizens automatically, then there would be NO need for "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It would only read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...le-myth-vs-fact#sthash.1pAKKTCQ.274WW3Ui.dpuf

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The money quote: "It's not going to hold up in court."

Republicans, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate this man for the presidency! It will guarantee the Democratic Party the political loyalty of Latin people for generations to come.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-14th-amendment-is-127077752761.html

He is talking about anchor babies......It is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION or the 14th. And he's right, No more anchor babies. Bringing in third world shitheads to turn the USA into a third world shithole has to end

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of executive privilege. JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all invoked executive privilege at one time or another.

President Obama has a constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". He clearly has the authority to order the Department of Justice to more comprehensively enforce the gun laws already passed by Congress or to enhance tracking of the paperwork related to the sale and registration of guns. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton actually implemented gun-control measures by executive orders pursuant to this authority, banning the importation of certain assault weapons under existing gun-control laws.

President Obama's executive order regarding immigration is in the federal courts now. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of his action.

You are greatly exaggerating the scope of Executive Order 13524. INTERPOL has no police force and does not conduct criminal investigations or make arrests. It is an administrative organization that helps international police forces share information and coordinate activities. If, for example, one country should issue an arrest warrant for a suspect currently residing in a second country, INTERPOL merely passes along the warrant and related information to the second country.

You are WRONG about President Obama's position regarding the DOMA. The Obama administration stated it would continue to enforce the law while it existed, but would not defend it in federal courts. It's a moot point, because the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2013.

Many American citizens have been killed by the US military as a result of accident or friendly fire. Funny how only President Obama gets blamed for it.

You are also WRONG about President Obama's appointments. The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2) states that officers of the United States must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. A position is an office if it is "invested by legal authority with a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal Government" and "continuing" in nature. Commissioned military officers and cabinet secretaries fall under this definition.

But Congress may also allow the president alone to appoint "inferior officers" -- advisers and directors often working in the White House who are not vetted or confirmed by the Senate. "Czars" fall into this category and their appointment does not require confirmation.

The Arizona lawsuit is a joke. The US Supreme Court has ruled in precedent that immigration policies are the province of the executive and legislative branches, not the states.

The US Supreme Court has ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional. So you're WRONG again.

You're also WRONG about the unconstitutionality of the FISA Act of 1978, specifically Section 702. It is certainly legal.

Any other WRONG bullcrap you would like me to educate you on?

Lord no wonder kids graduate college as a bunch of morons....we have nuts like u teaching them. BASED ON STATUARE LAW. There is no president for what POSOTUS did. Damn you're a sad ignorant buffoon

 

[Fivehade]

Lord no wonder kids graduate college as a bunch of morons....we have nuts like u teaching them. BASED ON STATUARE LAW. There is no president for what POSOTUS did. Damn you're a sad ignorant buffoon

Eh? What?

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Eh? What?

The guy claims to be a college professor , STATUTORY !!!

 

[whitepug6]

Your ignorance is astounding. You don't want the facts nor do you wish to face reality.

When was the last time, in regards to birthright citizenship, was the 14th Amendment challenged in court? I'll save you some time, its basically never been challenged, but please feel free to search your little heart out. I've posted the below before, but I'll post again because you clearly missed it or you wouldn't be showing your ignorance on the subject.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.” Everyone agrees with the basic concept of birthright citizenship as plainly stated in the first part of this clause. But in addition to the requirement that a child be born on American soil, the plain reading of the citizenship clause adds another requirement: “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” As we all know, there are no superfluous clauses in this tightly drafted document we call the U.S. Constitution. Clearly, the framers were drawing some limitation beyond simply being born on American soil.

Fortunately we need not speculate about their intent. The intent of the framers was crystal clear.
The purpose of this amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott case and ensure guaranteed citizenship to all former black slaves born in American, and likely living here for generations. At the same time they wanted to limit citizenship to those subject to our jurisdiction, which excludes those who are not legal permanent residents of this country and certainly illegal aliens.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the forerunner to the 14th Amendment, reads as follows: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Anyone who is here illegally or on a temporary visa is still subject to the jurisdiction of his or her own country of origin.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, explicitly said that candidates for citizenship must be born here AND not owe allegiance to another authority. He made it clear that allegiance "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." If we can be sure that even children of Indian tribes were excluded from automatic citizenship, certainly temporary visitors from foreign countries were meant to be excluded as well.

The notion that the framers of the 14th Amendment desired to include illegal aliens in birthright citizenship is not only contrary to the explicit language and context of the amendment, it is patently absurd.

If the author of the 14th meant that all persons born in the US were to become citizens automatically, then there would be NO need for "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It would only read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...le-myth-vs-fact#sthash.1pAKKTCQ.274WW3Ui.dpuf

WRONG AGAIN. The US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who were permanently domiciled in the US and who were carrying out business in the US other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a US citizen.

You really haven't got enough knowledge or training to take on a professional historian. Why do ignoramuses like you even try?

 

[whitepug6]

The guy claims to be a college professor , STATUTORY !!!

Fortunately, I can back it up. The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), that anchor babies are, indeed, US citizens by birthright.

You don't need to make any claims. You are plainly ignorant.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

WRONG AGAIN. The US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who were permanently domiciled in the US and who were carrying out business in the US other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a US citizen.

You really haven't got enough knowledge or training to take on a professional historian. Why do ignoramuses like you even try?

The precedent was different, the parents were ALREADY living here permanently. The illegals come over the border(ilegally) and then drop a child and are now proclaimed US citizens "Bullshit!". That Is not the intent of the law that was interpreted by the Supreme Court. It can and will be challenged! There have not been enough men in Washington with he balls to challenge the misuse of this law, until now!
I see where your boy is pissing off many in Ohio with his attempt to change Mt. McKinley (where President McKinley was from).
Looks like the left and their hateful ways will be coming to and end soon.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The precedent was different, the parents were ALREADY living here permanently. The illegals come over the border(ilegally) and then drop a child and are now proclaimed US citizens "Bullshit!". That Is not the intent of the law that was interpreted by the Supreme Court. It can and will be challenged! There have not been enough men in Washington with he balls to challenge the misuse of this law, until now!
I see where your boy is pissing off many in Ohio with his attempt to change Mt. McKinley (where President McKinley was from).
Looks like the left and their hateful ways will be coming to and end soon.

Exactly, I'm sure when they wrote the adm they were thinking " ya know, anyone that can get in here and has a baby , the baby can become a citizen" Forget that the guy who wrote is specifically said " no aliens" Ruled em out.

Liberals are dumb.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Fortunately, I can back it up. The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), that anchor babies are, indeed, US citizens by birthright.

You don't need to make any claims. You are plainly ignorant.

Wrong. But then you're a liberal, so , ya know

Anyway, notice a KEY word here?

From Ann Coulter: t is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.


The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic -- the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation's history known as "the American Revolution."

 

[jenkinscreekdawg]

Wrong. But then you're a liberal, so , ya know

Anyway, notice a KEY word here?

From Ann Coulter: t is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.


The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic -- the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation's history known as "the American Revolution."

rolo, what happened to blackpug ? he needs to come back to replace whitey !

 

[Rolodawg2011]

rolo, what happened to blackpug ? he needs to come back to replace whitey !

Don't know??

 

[CountryClubDawg]

WRONG AGAIN. The US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who were permanently domiciled in the US and who were carrying out business in the US other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a US citizen.

You really haven't got enough knowledge or training to take on a professional historian. Why do ignoramuses like you even try?

You, you ignorant sob, obviously didn't read the article or you wouldn't have started spouting your ridiculous nonsense; it clearly explains the US vs Wong Kim Ark at the end of the article. That is the reason I said "its basically never been challenged". Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

Although an activist court in 1898 seemed to apply the birthright citizenship principle found in English Common Law in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which in itself was a reversal of previous precedent and against the plain interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the case only applied to a child of parents who were legal permanent residents. Liberals wrongly apply this ruling to children of illegal aliens, even though English Common Law explicitly excluded children born to those who illegally occupied territory, as noted by Professor Lino Graglia at a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...le-myth-vs-fact#sthash.1pAKKTCQ.JvZcPksn.dpuf

Take off your ideological blinders and seek the truth, idiot. It is obvious to most everyone on this board you are a lunatic left wing ideologue who doesn't know shit from shinola. You're not winning over anyone with your idiocy. And, I don't have to hide behind some training to wipe the floor with you. Logical, common sense is all a person needs to put a left wing lunatic in their place.

 

[whitepug6]

You, you ignorant sob, obviously didn't read the article or you wouldn't have started spouting your ridiculous nonsense; it clearly explains the US vs Wong Kim Ark at the end of the article. That is the reason I said "its basically never been challenged". Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

Although an activist court in 1898 seemed to apply the birthright citizenship principle found in English Common Law in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which in itself was a reversal of previous precedent and against the plain interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the case only applied to a child of parents who were legal permanent residents. Liberals wrongly apply this ruling to children of illegal aliens, even though English Common Law explicitly excluded children born to those who illegally occupied territory, as noted by Professor Lino Graglia at a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...le-myth-vs-fact#sthash.1pAKKTCQ.JvZcPksn.dpuf

Take off your ideological blinders and seek the truth, idiot. It is obvious to most everyone on this board you are a lunatic left wing ideologue who doesn't know shit from shinola. You're not winning over anyone with your idiocy. And, I don't have to hide behind some training to wipe the floor with you. Logical, common sense is all a person needs to put a left wing lunatic in their place.

How then do you explain your lack of success?

 

[1966septemberdawg]

How then do you explain your lack of success?

That was extremely weak. You can do better than insulting someone when they have won an argument opposing you.
If you are challenged by a student do you call them names in front of the class? I hold academia to a higher standard and you should as well.

 

[whitepug6]

That was extremely weak. You can do better than insulting someone when they have won an argument opposing you.
If you are challenged by a student do you call them names in front of the class? I hold academia to a higher standard and you should as well.

I am responding to him in kind. If someone is both ignorant and arrogant, as Country Club Dawg is, he deserves to be ridiculed. The fact that you believe he has won an argument against me is pathetic, but you know what they say about the blind leading the blind...

 

[Rolodawg2011]

How then do you explain your lack of success?

Define success.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

I am responding to him in kind. If someone is both ignorant and arrogant, as Country Club Dawg is, he deserves to be ridiculed. The fact that you believe he has won an argument against me is pathetic, but you know what they say about the blind leading the blind...

His point reiterated what I had quoted, I found his argument sound and accurate therefore he won the argument. If you believe he lost the argument why would you feel the need to insult him? The 14th amendment was meant for legal citizens that were living permanently in the US to insure their children born here (in the US) were born as American citizens. It was ruled wrongly by a court that illegal immigrants are given the same rights as US citizens which is crazy. We can not support everyone that wants to collect from the system and not contribute. Common sense tells you that, but then again the left is not known for their logical thinking skills.