- 14A if looked at closely and in context with historical events, sections 1981, 1981a & 1982 of Title 42 USC, Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act, and the Freedman's Bureau Act, has never caused me any problem. Certain agenda driven rulings are my only problem with it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- get real - the Constitution was written to keep us free from and oppressive Federal government and included checks and balances so the three branches could stop usurpation from the others.Now that we have a clear vision of what the real issue is - it is not how, what or why it was written it is how it is used and for what purposes. Read the laws passed with the 14th amendment and the SC cases and tell me you think the 14th is A OK. BS.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I meant to post this yesterday when the debate was raging at full steam, but never could get back to the comment that would make it relevant, the thread was filling up fast with other comments.I was an accepted maxim back in the day to use the plural rather than the qualifier we use today in legalese, which is the "s" or other plural in brackets.If you go back and apply logic to the phrase I have picked from the Immigration Act of 1790, without leaving out the part you two so conveniently do: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States… Logic can now be applied. It was meant to encompass the children of female citizens who might marry a foreigner and give birth while overseas. Exactly the case that is being attributed to Stanley Ann Dunham.Go back and read documents from 16, 17, and even 1800's, you will very rarely if ever see the "s" in brackets.And to Atlas' claim of Much ado about nothing, well obviously you are not an attorney. (LOL) There are those of us that make a living mincing words. This is why I said earlier, the SCOTUS goes through such pains to be very exact in the nature of their rulings. Today, no less than 50 clerks (Con Law Scholars) read and re-read decisions searching for contraventions and mistakes in grammar.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United StatesHow does this phrase imply that the mother determines citizenship?Citizen mother, foriegn father and citizenship does not descend to the child. Indicates to me that the Fathers citizenship is determining factor. How do you get the opposite interpretation?ps the much ado about nothing was in regard to the Civil war Amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- All those clerks that are Con law experts and they check for spelling, tense, nouns, sentence structure, and you rwords -Today, no less than 50 clerks (Con Law Scholars) read and re-read decisions searching for contraventions and mistakes in grammar.DO YOU FING THINK THEY COULD CHECK THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDERS/FRAMERS/RATIFIERS WORK PRODUCT INSTEAD OF CONGRESS OF SOME DAMN FDR EXECUTIVE -THEN MAYBE OLD FARTS LIKE ME COULD RESPECT THE LAW AGAIN?
- Permalink Reply by on
- @Lock - 14thAThe Amendment is not the problem. The crazy interpretations are the problem. If prescedent is flawed why keep adding pieces to the jenga puzzle?This is the case with much in regard to the Constitution. By doing anything except keeping it realively simple, as was intended, we buy into the lawyers game of of complication. It obscures. Complication serves no one but lawyers and liars.By profession, by definition, attorneys are paid to make any argument the client wants, whether those arguments are real, imagined, convoluted, built on bad previous law, circular logic, parsing of words and ignoring intent and context or lies of omission. Then the Judges (many previously lawyers) make equally complicated decisions, second guessing and interpreting the complications devised to advance the agenda by the attorneys on both sides.Less law. Less complication. Better nation. It better be straight or its bad law IMO.I dont give a crap what the meaning of "is" is.
- Permalink Reply by on
- How does this phrase imply that the mother determines citizenship?Let's do a hypothetical...A citizen father and his citizen daughter travel abroad, his daughter meets, marries and has a child with the foreign born national. The father (of the child) and the child return to the US and the instant the father (not the mother) sets foot on US soil with the intent to take up residence, he/she (the child) becomes a natural born citizen. Does this not satisfy the criteria?I knew you were speaking to the Civil War reasoning behind the 14th, however words have consequences which could be unintended.Nathan,I couldn't tell you when the change took place, probably a question for English scholars, but you can see for yourself it is a true statement. I remember a professor speaking on this subject years ago on one of the days I wasn't sleeping in class. I'm not an historian and neither do I have a lot of experience reading ancient texts. But it was one of those things that stick in your mind and over the years it has proven correct.(at least for me)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your example - hypothetical. Marriage and intent to take up residence make the child a US citizen, but Natural Born?Well, then marital status is the litmus test? And intent to take up residence? I wonder why the child could be a natural born citizen IF THE Father did not become a citizen until after the birth, rather than being one at the time of birth.The courts might buy it, but most reglar folks wont I'm afraid.Words do have unintended consequences which is why I endeavor to use as few as possible. Less for an attorney to parse you see ;)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your example - hypothetical. Marriage and intent to take up residence make the child a US citizen, but Natural Born?I didn't say it, the founders did and Adams signed it!!The phrase makes no mention of the mother having to return or take up residence, therefore we must infer from the foregoing statement the hypothetical could be true, if we apply the maxim I spoke of. Agreed?
- Permalink Reply by on
- No.But only because we went so far away from whatever it is Adams signed and all I have to rely on is your hypothetical interpretation - lolI may disagree with Mr. Adams. I think the intent, was 1 man citizen + 1 woman citizen producing a child = 1 natural born citizen, my deference being to an intent that foriegners were not to be qualified for the Presidency. Otherwise language for all the options would have been provided for exceptions.However, like nathan stated in regard to the 14thA, its not going to be resolved as written.Not agreeing, not disagreeing but moving along.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Get fing over it the 14th is set in Stare decisus [settled law] and short of a Constitutional amendment it shall remain. You all are in a pissing contest over words and overlooking the current reality - when you piss into the wind all that happens is your feet get wet. Can we move on to the real meat of the problems with the 14th?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Come on guys this is like my uncle used to love but he died by Roger Miller - you can not take a shower in a parakeets cage - who gives a big turd it will not be changed without revocation - so get on to the next subject - you rode this horse to death a long time ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment