Total topics: 2
"The Republican Party...and being a party of progress they determined to incorporate into the Constitution of the United States an amendment, that should define American citizenship - white and black, native and foreign born, in unmistakable terms, and for all time. That was the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Let us look at the language of that amendment, "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."
Mark you then: "all person," no matter what their color, black or white, blonde or brunette - no matter where born, native or naturalized: The Constitution says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens thereof, and of the States wherein they reside." That is the affirmative part of the amendment."
...
"Fellow-citizens, that amendment was passed in Congress by the Republican vote, with every Democratic vote opposed. It was passed in three-fourths of the State Legislatures, with every Republican vote in every Legislature in favor of it, and every Democratic vote in every Legislature opposed to it, and to this hour there has never been in any convention of the Democratic party, National, State, county, or district, a single declaration so far as I have seen agreeing to abide by and enforce that amendment." - pg. 141
"...in a Republic where suffrage is universal, we cannot permit a large immigration of people who are to be forbidden the elective franchise." - pg. 235
Political Discussions Legislative, Diplomatic and Popular, 1856-1886, James G. Blaine, printed 1887.
"This Amendment was proposed by Congress, June 16th, 1866, and was declared to be a part of the Constitution, July 21st, 1868, by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. ... According to the opinion given by Mr. Justice Swayne, as already quoted, the emancipation of a slave removes the obstacle to his citizenship. Aliens become citizens by naturalization; slaves, by emancipation." - pg. 254
"The act passed Congress in April, 1866, known as the Civil Rights Bill, gave expression to this opinion. It declared all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, to be citizens of the United States." - pg. 255
"Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Every person born in the country is, from time of birth, prima facie a citizen. An alien can become a citizen only by compliance with the rule of naturalization prescribed by Congress.
...
In 1790, Congress passed an act requiring two years' residence before a foreigner could become a citizen. In 1795, the time was extended to five years, and in 1798 it was extended to fourteen years. But in 1802, it was reduced to five years, which is the time now required.
...
"...a declaration, on oath, of his purpose to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince or state;..." - pg. 88
"The children of persons duly naturalized, who were under twenty-one at the date of such naturalization, shall be considered citizens, if residing in the United States." - pg. 89
Andrews Manual to the Constitution - Revised Edition, Isreal Ward Andrews, D.D., L.L.D, printed 1887
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
- Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
- Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
"The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." (emphasis added)
"Most legal scholars say such a move would directly contradict the 14th Amendment, which 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.”
~ Those legal scholars would be wrong, as equally as wrong as previous lower court and SCOTUS decisions have been in the distant past (many before the 14th was even passed), as outlined in this article: Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship | The Hill
The fact remains that the US Government (via democrats/liberals) have been purposely misinterpreting the 14th in created an illegitimate "birthright citizenship" whereas illegal aliens are concerned. The legislative intent, discussions, and final agreements between the states in passing and ratification of said amendment make it crystal clear.
Whoever becomes the next POTUS, I do hope they end this corruption where illegal aliens and their popping out anchor babies are concerned. They have no right to citizenship without going through the naturalization process.
NOTE: the two cited books at the beginning of this post cannot be linked to online (at least I did not look), because I own the books.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Since Roe v Wade was decided, everyone learned how and why SCOTUS ruled in favor of allowing women to obtain an abortion. That decision hinged on women's right to privacy. Despite the precedence standing for nearly 50 years, SCOTUS got it wrong. There is no right to "privacy" in the 14th Amendment. However, there is a clause within that amendment that directly applies to "personal liberty."
"Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason."
The legal definition of liberty is the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)."
A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not [a] person. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean, is as follows:
- (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
- (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or "extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
- (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
- (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
What the 14th Amendment does in fact state regarding the legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law for persons is ... that they are only bestowed upon [a] person once they are either born or naturalized. Since this topic involves abortion, being born is the only legal standard clearly demarcated within the 14th Amendment that establishes those rights, privileges and equal protection of the law upon a person.
Read the rest of the post here: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/scotus-got-roe-v-wade-wrong-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-have-come-to-know
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics