RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: DJT Stirs Up The Pillow Biters With 14th Amendment Comment - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

DJT Stirs Up The Pillow Biters With 14th Amendment Comment Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 49,817
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 31 October 2018 - 01:38 AM

DJT Stirs Up The Pillow Biters With 14th Amendment Comment

This issue continues to upset the left, who cannot read the constitution and choose to ignore the stated intent of it's (sic) amendments by their enlightened authors. We have visited the issue of the 14th amendment in the past, so we repost here from the DMF archives of 2015, the last time this issue arose.

Diogenes' Middle Finger
by Anna Maria Perez
Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Excerpt:

The 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to everyone born in the United States. In order to assume that it does, a person has to actually ignore what it says. The Supreme Court set the precedent of birthright citizenship by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Poor education about our history and government ensures that We the People never get uppity over this unconstitutional misinterpretation. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give citizenship to former slaves who were in the United States through no fault of their own.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. If it granted citizenship for no reason other than being born on U.S. soil, you would think that the U.S. would have started granting birthright citizenship in 1868, right? Wrong. They didn’t, because that isn’t what the 14th Amendment says. As a matter of fact, two years prior to its ratification, Senator Jacob Howard explained the actual intent of the 14th Amendment. He said:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

The key to inheriting birthright citizenship is being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries they are citizens of. We deport illegal aliens back to the countries that they are subject to the jurisdiction of. If they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they would have all privileges and rights that go with that jurisdiction including voting, enlisting in our armed forces, and running for public office. Not being part of our jurisdiction, they are ineligible. They can do so in their home countries. The Supreme Court held to this in the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case. They decided that the children of foreign ministers were not granted birthright citizenship based on the fact that they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

*snip*

Full Commentary

Read More:

The 14th Amendment Doesn't Grant Citizenship To Babies Of Illegal Aliens
0

#2 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 16,983
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 31 October 2018 - 10:10 AM

The time is ripe for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue. If Trump can trigger a birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court with his birthright citizenship executive order, it could be an immigration game-changer. A win for Trump on this issue would secure his legacy for centuries.

I wonder if we could make a successful ruling retroactive? I guess that would be asking for too much...
0

#3 User is offline   Joe the Pagan 

  • I'm a Whovian not a Dweeb
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,391
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 31 October 2018 - 10:29 AM

Considering how badly the left twisted Jefferson's words in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. I would not be surprised if they twist Senator Jacob Howard's words
0

#4 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,022
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 31 October 2018 - 01:05 PM

Pushing out an executive order, properly worded, that will force the issue of Birthright Citizenship to a SCOTUS case is probably the most efficient and rapid approach possible, although it's more liable to fail in ways you don't expect than a Constitutional amendment. But hey, if Roe V. Wade can discover hidden meanings in the Constitution that were never there without an amendment, well, the precedent is set I guess.
0

#5 User is offline   USMCforever60 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 02-November 04

Posted 01 November 2018 - 12:12 PM

Representative democracies only last 200 yrs before they become corrupt. Maybe Trump could start the reversal?
0

#6 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,299
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 01 November 2018 - 09:43 PM

Adding a wall and removing anchor babies would make the influx reduce to a trickle. And we can handle a trickle.
0

#7 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,262
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 02 November 2018 - 01:17 AM

View PostJoe the Pagan, on 31 October 2018 - 10:29 AM, said:

Considering how badly the left twisted Jefferson's words in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. I would not be surprised if they twist Senator Jacob Howard's words

They will definitely try. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. What is less certain is that the current SCOTUS would give any weight to their twisting and verbal gymnastics?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users