Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phazer, you clearly have not studied
> constitutional law. Your sources are wrong. You
> need to read/watch more broadly.
>
>
> -----------------------
> > I disagree with your interpretation
> understanding
> > about the 14th amendment and in my opinion is
> > wrong. Furthermore you've believed the lie for
> > decades. That amendment was only created for
> > black slaves and their children. Period.
> Period.
> > Period.
>
> The constitution is read as it is written, not as
> the people who composed parts of it, or voted for
> it, wanted. The reason is that sponsors propose
> measures and the rest of the participants then
> decide whether to adopt them or not. Their
> reasons for supporting the measure--every bit as
> important as the authors' themselves--may well
> differ from the author's. So courts don't give
> automatic deference to the original authors'
> views: they read what is written within "the four
> corners" of the document.
>
> That's why the constitutional rights apply to the
> descendants of slaves and to women, neither of
> whom were covered by original intent. Original
> intent is informative but NEVER dispositive.
>
>
>
> --------------
> > This will be used by the Supreme Court to
> finally
> > explain exactly what this 14th amendment was
> > about.
>
> The court has already addressed the issue. There
> are two supreme court decisions, the more
> important of which was US v. Wong, 1898.
> (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169
> /649) The universal applicability of the amendment
> has not been challenged since because the
> interpretation was clarified long ago.
>
> If I were you, I wouldn't listen to people like
> Pence who are simply dissembling when they deny
> the existence of the supreme court's decisions.
> The facts are out there.
>
>
> --------------------
> > Exploration of it's meaning has been delayed if
> > not deflected all for political reasons, none
> of
> > them good, as it is used 100+ years from it's
> > original intent.
>
> Proof? You are asserting that politics have
> gotten in the way of the definition of the 14th
> amendment. If you are correct, then there will be
> a number of challenges that the courts have struck
> down for political reasons. Can you list those
> cases? If not, perhaps you'll have to reject the
> (false) notions about political interference.
>
>
>
> -----------------
> > If a time machine existed,you could go back and
> > ask the author of the amendment along with the
> > Jethros of south and Williams of the North
> about
> > what it meant.
>
> Actually, you can't. Because almost none of the
> "Jethros" who enacted the amendment left records
> of their deliberations and conclusions.
>
That may be true and we aren't going to use their journals but you can see what Congress recorded right here by the author of the amendment.
https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-AmendmentThe PRESIDENT
pro tempore
. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan,[Mr. HOWARD.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I donot propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed inthis body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simplydeclaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the UnitedStates, 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 thefamilies of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will includeevery other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what personsare or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence andlegislation of this country.
Who isn't included? Repeat "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to thefamilies of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will includeevery other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what personsare or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence andlegislation of this country."
>
> -----------------
> > Who's in charge of the Federal Bureaucracy?
> > President.
> >
> > The President has the authority to issue an
> > executive order clarifying how the executive
> > branch will interpret the 14th Amendment
> > concerning the citizenship status of children
> born
> > in the United States to illegal aliens.
>
> The president has the right to clarify its
> implementation of the constitution and the law
> within the parameters of the constitution and the
> law. That is why is first several bans were
> disallowed and why the White House cannot simply
> ignore supreme court history regarding the 14th
> amendment.
Certain areas of the country were used to file challenges to the E.O. bans signed by the President giving Judges with limited jurisdiction to then mandate their ruling Nationally. It was ridiculous and ultimately the Supreme Court slapped all of those courts. Some of the judges should of been penalized for politicizing their judgements. It was a real circus and ultimately all these lower courts were overturned.
>
> -------------------
> > The Jurisdiction will be defined and real law
> and
> > order will be re-established.
>
> The order you want "re-established" will in fact
> not be "re-established" because it is
> unconstitutional. The issue has already been
> decided.
>
> I repeat that the president will almost certainly
> not press the issue. He will use it to whip up
> his base, then after Tuesday he will drop it.
> Why? Because the White House and its lawyers know
> that they stand no chance of succeeding. Watch
> what happens.
I will watch with you. I hope birthrigh citizenship as it is interpreted now will be more clearly defined and the loop hole be closed ending birth tourism from all these foreign countries and decrease medical costs. More births in Los Angeles are from foreigners than 10 or 14 states birthrates combined which costs I think upwards to $2 Billion dollars a year. These VISA visiting birthing mothers aren't picking up the hosipital bills.
>
>
>
> ---------------
> > I would consider illegal aliens and foreigners
> > ALSO not part of the United States therefore
> not
> > subject under the jurisdiction the 14th
> amendment
> > is referring to.
>
> You are welcome to hold and express that opinion.
> There is, however, constitutional law on this
> point. The answer is that there are multiple
> levels of constitutional protection. Legal
> citizens within the US get full protection.
> Illegals within the US get partial
> protection--otherwise the government could lock
> up, and torture, any illegal--or any American whom
> the government decides to treat as an illegal.
> The courts have held that there are things the US
> government cannot do to illegals, enemies, even
> illegal serial killers. There is also a third
> tier of constitutional rights that apply to
> non-citizens abroad--again things like limitations
> on arbitrary murders and torture.
>
> You can ignore these facts if you want, but they
> are still facts.
The fact is the Supreme court will make a final ruling because you say it's the law and it is not. The law is that the 14th amemenment was for black slaves and their children. Period.