I guess for me the argument is also one of history. In 1790 John Adams was President, he was one of the most influential of the founders, his legal record is indisputable, he was the "Johnny Cochran" of his day. Yet, when it came to the very first piece of legislation having to do with immigration, you want me to believe he signed into law something he and his brethren did not intend. The intent of the framers is clearly shown in the Immigration Act of 1790, not only did many of the framers work on the legislation, but it found it's way to the desk of John Adams, and he signed it into law.
The Immigration Act of 1790 extended natural born citizenship to children of American parents born outside the United States. This is the first and only time the phrase “natural born citizen” appears in US immigration law.
I have pursued this argument for the same reason you have, because I disagree with the premise that an anchor baby should one day be able to rise to the office of President of the United States. I have gone to lengths to prove that presently, that is exactly what can happen and if we don't do something about it, it will. It is my desire that we address this through the Amendment process, but we'll get nowhere if Birther's and others refuse to accept the fact that this is the law as it stands today.I'll let it go at this point, and not press the issue any further.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Don't misunderstand me. I at no time thought we were arguing. I simply disagree with the way the law has been (mis)interpreted; not with your well rounded argument that 'it is the law, as currently interpreted'.
It was not my intention to suggest an end to debate on this topic. I simply meant that I really have little desire to go digging through my files to prove a historical understanding of the term NB. (again)
Friends challenge one another; let's continue as friends do.
Perhaps we could shift more to the 14th for a bit? What say you?
BTW, I fully support a repeal of 14, 16 and 17A. 14A, if properly understood, is really not a problem IMHO but changing the modern interpretation is not going to happen. Repeal is the only solution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'm for moving to amend all you have listed. I feel I have put out a good argument to amend the 14th, the 16th is gonna be a bit tougher, but not impossible. The 17th is going to make the people feel they are losing their say. Let's start with the 16th, what's your best argument for repeal?BTW I use the term argument for all debate, it's what I did for a living. I never take an issue personally.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Best argument for repeal of 16A.....hmmmm. This won't be my best as I've already begun my 'Heineken time' but to get the ball rolling......
First, 16A made possible all the ills we now see in our unFederal govt. A cursory look at the year 1913 speaks volumes. Wilson fundamentally changed how the Fed operates and where it acquires it's funding. Up until that time the Fed operated on what it gathered from tariffs. In roughly a fiscal quarter our entire structure of govt was overturned. The Federal Income Tax Act (Sep. 5, 1913) substituted the Feds source of income from tariffs to 'we the People' the Underwood Tariff Act (Oct. 12, 1913) got rid of the now unnecessary tariffs and the Federal Reserve Act (Dec. 23, 1913) put into place the body that would oversee the new structure. IMHO, fed gov would be financially unable to operate unconstitutionally if forced back into it's constitutional limits regarding raising income/spending. The original, constitutional, system would not allow for it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If we can get the States to repeal one we can get them to repeal three - it is in the best interest of all of the people to return to the Original intent - that the States are the Sovereigns and the Federal is a creation of them. So, the States are the agents of the people and the body charged with their freedoms and rights being maintained.The 17th must be part or IMO we will suffer the same usurpation when as Jefferson warned that the court and the Congress agree. It is not only necessary IMO that these are revoked - it will determine if America is t survive as a Republic.Lock Piatt 2011
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is a conversation topic from US Constitution.net online. Pay close attention to the last part when he talks about the attempt made during the Reagan years.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I use this site as it is the best I have found for notated details. Yes, I have read that before and would agree with the author - now go to the gyrations that were used to pass this 14th amendment - well maybe? But now it is what it is and what the SCOTUS has said it is unless we revoke it or convince a new SCOTUS that it is not expandable in the directions the previous courts have taken.Now to your particular point which I will refute the author about -Some advocate a return to an emphasis on dual federalism as a returning of power to a government closer to the people, and hence under better popular control. There are many problems with this, however, as many states found in the Reagan era. President Reagan was a strong advocate of states rights, and wanted to return many of the powers taken up by the federal government to the states. But in many cases, this created more bureaucracy, as each of the 50 states had to establish offices to administer programs the federal government handed over. Worse, the transition was often unfunded, meaning that the costs of the programs were shifted to the states, but federal taxes were not reduced accordingly, leading to a higher tax burden on the people as states raised taxes to fund the programs. Worse, when federal taxes were cut, federal aid to the states that did exist was cut as well.But despite the appeal of cooperative federalism, there is an on-going appeal to a degree of dual federalism. The failure of President Bill Clinton's national health care initiatives is a perfect example of an area of politics that the people feel is best held more closely, in spite of some of the benefits of a national system.Well when you only transfer the social responsibilities without the RIGHTS to own all the land in your State boundaries so you can build your particular industries and economy and they did not reduce any Fedral regulation powers - How could the State not lose the battle?Now back to the first para of my reply - it is the expansion of the 14th by the courts that has ham-stringed the States. The way the SCOTUS has opened up the extent of the amendment so that the Federal Government can seize about anything they e=desire to force down the throats of the States. I see no way to restore States or the peoples rights if this wide open amendment is allowed to stand. JMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- I thought I just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the 14th was written in a manner which would have been consistent with the founders beliefs. Go down and read my post about the Immigration Act of 1790. The problem lies in the unintended consequences, the founders never could have imagined anchor babies, they figured anyone who would come here and have children, the children would become loyal to the country. The whole thing is upside down today. The 14th needs to be repealed not because it is inconsistent with the founders, but because it is. It's not consistent (the 14th) with what we believe today, and we have the right to change it through the amendment process. JMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'm going to get a little picky on this one. To my nonlegal eyes …And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: seems clear. 'Children ofcitizens' not 'the children of a citizen' which I believe they would have stated if that was their intent. (I know, my NB argument again)The 14th did not, as is currently held, allow for 'anchor babies'.the 14th Amendment created another class of citizen. This new type of citizen was not created by the well-settled and long existing rules and tradition of international law as relating to citizenship. This new class of citizen gained his citizenship by the citizens of the "original class of citizenship" agreeing to establish a new class of citizenship and gifting that new class of citizenship (by the Amendment) to a certain designated "class of persons" who, at that time, were without any form of citizenship.Those who come here, illegally or not, and give birth are in possession of citizenship from whatever country they came from.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."The term 'All persons' does not mean just anyone. As used in 14A, it is a legal term that specifies a particular 'class' of people being given citizenship.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I fail to understand all the gyrations in regard to the 14thA.It was written directly to address civil war issues.It gave slaves brought here citizenship. It stated that debts for the civil war would be paid without question. It stated that no debts of the Confederacy would be honored. It prohibited Confederates from office unless overridden by 2/3 vote of congress. It allowed for Congress to make legislation to enforce the Amendment.All the nonsense infering this, that and the other thing, appears to be parsing and perverting the obvious intent of the Amendment. To a layman, just so much bullshit. Much ado about nada.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The 14th maybe the biggest problem in restoring the Constitutional powers to the States and the single biggest window for the courts to pass through to usurp powers and force Judicial legislation from the bench.It is more dangerous to the rights of the States and the people than any single item IMO - Read this - need I say more?
Equal Protection Clause
Main article: Equal Protection Clause
U.S. circuit judges Robert Katzmann,Damon Keith, and Sonia Sotomayor at a 2004 exhibit on the Fourteenth Amendment,Thurgood Marshall, and Brown v. Board of Education.
In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia, 1880) or discriminating against Chinese Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886), as violations of the Equal Protection Clause. However, in Plessy v. Ferguson(1896), the Supreme Court held that the states could impose segregation so long as they provided similar facilities—the formation of the “separate but equal” doctrine.[26] The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in Berea College v. Kentucky (1908), holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting colleges from having both black and white students. By the early twentieth century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments."[27]The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reached the Court. In Brown the Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional.Brown met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce Brown's mandate against repeated attempts at circumvention.[28] This resulted in the controversialdesegregation busing decrees handed down by federal courts in various parts of the nation (see Milliken v. Bradley, 1974).[29] In Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Negro" and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such asMexican Americans in this case. In the half century since Brown, the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (United States v. Virginia, 1996; Levy v. Louisiana, 1968).[30]The Supreme Court, since Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)[31] and Reynolds v. Sims (1964),[32] has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats according to "one man, one vote".[33] The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations.[34] In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), the Court ruled that Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of Latinos and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.In 2011, a federal court ruled that the Mississippi Constitution allowed a two year delay in redistricting so that districts did not need to instantly match the census.[35][edit]Incorporation
Main articles: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights and Privileges or Immunities ClauseIn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. According to Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment.[36] However, in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government by virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlawracial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and have been specifically reaffirmed several times.[37]However, by the latter half of the twentieth century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states, under what is known as theincorporation doctrine.[38] The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First,Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.[39] While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v. Carey.[40] The Seventh Amendment has been held not to be applicable to the states.[39][41][edit]
- Permalink Reply by on
- Disagree. Decisions based on false logic.Again -CONTEXT; The Amendment was specifically written with the intent to address the aftermath of the Civil War: No more & no less.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, withoutdue process of law; nor deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Clearly is to protect the rights of freed slaves in the Southern states.IMO all the discussion and extrapolation of the 14thA language is perverting the intent of it in order to advance a narrow agenda by people. I do not buy it. At best a circular cluster of mental masturbation IMO.
No comments:
Post a Comment