Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[HenryBHough]

Should SCOTUS suddenly decide to get involved in this cluster-fuck is it not possible that the great Obama "presidency" could be nullified and every action he has ever taken while posing as "president" be voided?

Not saying they would....but ponder the possibility.

Reading-comprehension challenged liberals, please do not reply.

 

[JakeStarkey]

repeat

the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

 

[Correll]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.


He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

 

[Correll]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Thank you. Obviously SCOTUS says such people are subject to the law, including due process. Send your questions to the Court.

 

[Correll]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.



These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Thank you. Obviously SCOTUS says such people are subject to the law, including due process. Send your questions to the Court.

So you can't make sense of it either?

 

[JakeStarkey]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.



These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Thank you. Obviously SCOTUS says such people are subject to the law, including due process. Send your questions to the Court.

So you can't make sense of it either?

Can you explain how your questions are sensible? Those do not make sense.

 

[bendog]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Thank you. Obviously SCOTUS says such people are subject to the law, including due process. Send your questions to the Court.

He may have read it, but he didn't understand it. The supreme court said illegal aliens are subject to the laws of the state, so until such time that they are deported, they must have equal protection including educational services. Whether or not they're citizens ... I think that's another matter.

But, would John Roberts actually support a change in law that would result in every "anchor baby" born before the law was enacted and signed IS a citizen, and every "anchor baby" born after is NOT a citizen? I'm having some trouble getting my head around him doing so, but I suppose it's possible.

 

[Staidhup]

The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.

 

[bendog]

The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.

Well, the gop has to win the potus, and 60 plus in the Senate .. and be willing to alienate Hispanics forever to get to court. So, it might be better to try and find other solutions to illegal immigration. LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

" original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area" is merely an uninformed opinion. However, by all means, carry on and offer arguments, precedents, etc., to bolster that opinion.

 

[Staidhup]

The court is not a political tool, regardless of which party controls the Senate, White House, or Congress, has no bearing as to determining the acceptance of either Amicus Curiae or Amicus Brief before the court. It is simply the courts decision.

 

[bendog]

The court is not a political tool, regardless of which party controls the Senate, White House, or Congress, has no bearing as to determining the acceptance of either Amicus Curiae or Amicus Brief before the court. It is simply the courts decision.

Oh the Court's a political tool. Whether the Justices allow themselves to be used in various political issues is always the question.

But, there are lots of ways to make illegal immigrants not as comfortable as they are now. Sometimes 'the art of the deal' is taking a deal you can live with and not going for one you can't ever get.

 

[Staidhup]

You can start with Gay Marriage and definition of Marriage, Federal vs State law.....Roe vs Wade, Brown vs the board of education, Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, and most recently Judicial Watch's current opposition to race based admission policies of the UT Austin. Jake its not worth further discussion, I am well aware of your position on social issues and political ideology.

 

[Staidhup]

Jake, here is a clue, research the word intent within the context of law, then research Amicus Curiae and Amicus Brieff within Supreme court rulings.

 

[Syriusly]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.

What does the 14th Amendment say?

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

Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

 

[Syriusly]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws.

He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Thank you. Obviously SCOTUS says such people are subject to the law, including due process. Send your questions to the Court.

He may have read it, but he didn't understand it. The supreme court said illegal aliens are subject to the laws of the state, so until such time that they are deported, they must have equal protection including educational services. Whether or not they're citizens ... I think that's another matter..

Illegal aliens are not citizens- nothing in Plyler says any such thing.

But it does say that Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction- which according to the 14th Amendment- would make their children born here- citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.

The Court can only respond to a legal challenge.

If Congress passed say a law saying that children born to illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens- the Supreme Court by itself could do nothing.

Someone would have to file suit against Congress on constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the matter.