DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: World Current Events, Politics and News
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8620--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: NealC Date: November 2, 2018, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another quote from the court:
"(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading
purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at
the foundation of each, and without which none of them would
have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race,
the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the
protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the
oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited
dominion over him."
It is not immigration law, it is anti slavery law.
#Post#: 8636--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: SHL Date: November 2, 2018, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=568.msg8610#msg8610
date=1541156449]
"Namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their
tribal ties and persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers"
Right, that is where the original intent lies - people who are
born in the US who are foreigners and aliens by definition -
because of their ancestry. Perhaps back then it was only
children of ambassadors but in the interim Congress has acted to
curtail free immigration, which is their right under article
one, section 8.
I think that will be a compelling argument. And you will notice
the big difference between this ruling and "legislation from the
bench". A positive ruling on my argument SENDS THE DECISION
BACK TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, the Congress for
Legislation. Which is where it belongs.
Roe is an incredibly odd ruling with our Justices dividing
pregnancy into trimesters with different rules. Why trimesters,
is it because 9 is only divisible by 3? Where the hell does the
Constitution give them the right to give such a ruling? And it
is embarrassing and stupid for them to give us some
quasi-medical foolishness they made up out of whole cloth. And
Roe is only the most obvious example of legislation from the
bench. I am interested in seeing every instance of Judicial
Legislation challenged.
The guiding principle of the court should be to protect the
rights of citizens, and to protect the sovereign right of the
States to make the laws that are not enumerated in the
Constitution as Federal Matters. And then to leave Federal
Matters in the hands of the Congress. That is why I want Roe
overturned.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."
[/quote]
You`re not reading the language correctly. People who are
foreigners or aliens WHO BELONG TO FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR
FOREIGN MINISTERS. The “who” refers to the of people to
diplomatic families only. It`s clear. That’s called strict
construction. It says so right there. It doesn’t say “whoever we
want to call a foreigner”, A SPIN you want to add to serve your
political agenda. It doesn’t say a child born to any
non-citizen. NO, NO. NO. WRONG. So, we are really only left with
Native American Indians. Sounds like we could deny them
citizenship though born here. Wanna do that?
#Post#: 8640--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: NealC Date: November 2, 2018, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Native Americans were excluded from citizenship until 1924, when
it was granted by an Act of Congress. Citizenship in the 19th
and early 20th Centuries was granted to all who applied in
person by an Act of Congress. And those persons were qualified
by rules set by Congress and signed by the President. Now,
whether or not I am reading that wrong will soon be decided in
the Court and it will not be Judicial Activism because if my
argument wins the issue will be sent back to the Congress for
action on behalf of the people.
Our people. You know, real citizens.
It is a heady time for those who love freedom.
I found an article about it this morning by one of your favorite
authors. Try
HTML http://www.anncoulter.com/
#Post#: 8642--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: SHL Date: November 2, 2018, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=568.msg8640#msg8640
date=1541168053]
Native Americans were excluded from citizenship until 1924, when
it was granted by an Act of Congress. Citizenship in the 19th
and early 20th Centuries was granted to all who applied in
person by an Act of Congress. And those persons were qualified
by rules set by Congress and signed by the President. Now,
whether or not I am reading that wrong will soon be decided in
the Court and it will not be Judicial Activism because if my
argument wins the issue will be sent back to the Congress for
action on behalf of the people.
Our people. You know, real citizens.
It is a heady time for those who love freedom.
I found an article about it this morning by one of your favorite
authors. Try
HTML http://www.anncoulter.com/
[/quote]
But Neal, your argument doesn’t make any sense. It’s foreign
citizens who are families of diplomates. Those are the “who”
people the sentence is referring to. Not just anyone we casually
decide to select. It`s definitely not all children born in the
US to non-US citizens. That is crystal clear. It couldn’t be
clearer. It’s not any foreign national who is the child any old
foreign national we decide to single out and say we have no
jurisdiction over. That sounds like a 6th grade analysis. And
selectively saying we don’t have jurisdiction over someone
ibecause Congress says so or the President says so is laughable.
What if they are carrying contraband? No jurisdiction over them?
You`re not serious.
#Post#: 8643--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: SHL Date: November 2, 2018, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I don’t read or listen to Ann Coulter. She a
right-wing conservative money grubbing lunatic.
#Post#: 8650--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: SHL Date: November 2, 2018, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=568.msg8640#msg8640
date=1541168053]
Native Americans were excluded from citizenship until 1924, when
it was granted by an Act of Congress. Citizenship in the 19th
and early 20th Centuries was granted to all who applied in
person by an Act of Congress. And those persons were qualified
by rules set by Congress and signed by the President. Now,
whether or not I am reading that wrong will soon be decided in
the Court and it will not be Judicial Activism because if my
argument wins the issue will be sent back to the Congress for
action on behalf of the people.
Our people. You know, real citizens.
It is a heady time for those who love freedom.
I found an article about it this morning by one of your favorite
authors. Try
HTML http://www.anncoulter.com/
[/quote]
So, Congress made a law the president signed. And then it was
followed. So what?
#Post#: 8651--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: NealC Date: November 2, 2018, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SHL link=topic=568.msg8643#msg8643
date=1541170086]
By the way, I don’t read or listen to Ann Coulter. She a
right-wing conservative money grubbing lunatic.
[/quote]
Is this because she tells the truth and you don't want to hear
it?
#Post#: 8657--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: SHL Date: November 2, 2018, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Because she an arrogant goofball who makes money writing dumb
books supporting right-wing causes. Then she goes on public
forums for more money and just says “read my book.”
#Post#: 8662--------------------------------------------------
Re: The exciting debate about the 14th amendment
By: Truman Overby Date: November 2, 2018, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SHL link=topic=568.msg8657#msg8657
date=1541173449]
Because she an arrogant goofball who makes money writing dumb
books supporting right-wing causes. Then she goes on public
forums for more money and just says “read my book.”
[/quote]
At least she's literate. Can you say the same for your hero Mad
Max Maxine Waters?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page