House Republicans still want to rip out the 14th amendment....

[Contumacious]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

 

[occupied]

Yes, not sure you realize just how fascist we would have to become to enforce immigration laws to the satisfaction of you people, or maybe you do and just don't mind living in a country where thousands of doors are kicked in and people are dragged off in the middle of the night.

Perhaps Blueballs would want just a little tattoo with numbers on those folks' forearms????

Guy doesn't know what he wants but when you explain that we would have to become much more of a police state to just round them up and ship them back as they wish they really have no answer. There is also the question of what you do with hundreds of thousands of armed paramilitary federal immigration enforcers after they have rounded them up, the possibilities for tyranny are disquieting.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What do you call anchor babies?

Legal US citizens, according to the law of this land.

You do understand that very simple principle, right?

Have you actually read the 14th Amendment? It does not grant automatic US Citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

Section 1. 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, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are governed by treaties and international law.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment

United States nationality law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. I will forgive your stupidity, but only for now.

The moment a new human being is born on US Soil, that person is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That person's parents may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but that newborn IS. That was the VERY purpose for the 14th amendment.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Oh, but you forgot to bold the rest that is relevant. Here, I will help:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

 

[OKTexas]

What do you call anchor babies?

Legal US citizens, according to the law of this land.

You do understand that very simple principle, right?

Have you actually read the 14th Amendment? It does not grant automatic US Citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

Section 1. 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, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are governed by treaties and international law.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment

United States nationality law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. I will forgive your stupidity, but only for now.

The moment a new human being is born on US Soil, that person is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That person's parents may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but that newborn IS. That was the VERY purpose for the 14th amendment.

Then explain why the writers of the 14th inserted that caveat?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hard to believe that in the year 2015, some regressives are still knuckle-dragging enough to think that the Civil War was not related to slavery and that somehow, babies born in the USA are bad for us.

Weird, very, very weird.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What do you call anchor babies?

Legal US citizens, according to the law of this land.

You do understand that very simple principle, right?

Have you actually read the 14th Amendment? It does not grant automatic US Citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

Section 1. 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, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are governed by treaties and international law.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment

United States nationality law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. I will forgive your stupidity, but only for now.

The moment a new human being is born on US Soil, that person is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That person's parents may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but that newborn IS. That was the VERY purpose for the 14th amendment.

Then explain why the writers of the 14th inserted that caveat?

It's not a caveat. It was legalese of the day and still is today.

You realize that this bullshit has already been argued and shot down many times, right?

 

[Contumacious]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Oh, but you forgot to bold the rest that is relevant. Here, I will help:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So the scumbag did not want the states to secede during his watch.

Slavery was NOT the issue.


.

 

[occupied]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

When this was written the last state had been seceded for 14 months and Lincoln was waffling on proclaiming emancipation which he eventually did do because it was the right thing to do. He does not specifically address the reasons for the war because, I can assure you, Mr. Horace Greeley knew them well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Oh, but you forgot to bold the rest that is relevant. Here, I will help:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So the scumbag did not want the states to secede during his watch.

Slavery was NOT the issue.


.

Of course slavery was the issue. It had been the hotbutton issue since fucking 1820.

How stupid can you possibly be? Oh wait, please don't answer that. I just had dinner.

Abraham Lincoln simply stated the obvious: he was willing to do whatever it would take to preserve the Union.

But I can understand why an asswipe like you would call one of our greatest presidents a "scumbag".

Got news for you: he moved history. He was a real somebody. You will never move history. You are a nobody, and a disgusting one at that.

 

[Contumacious]

Hard to believe that in the year 2015, some regressives are still knuckle-dragging enough to think that the Civil War was not related to slavery and that somehow, babies born in the USA are bad for us.

Weird, very, very weird.

Hard to believe that government supremacists such as yourself forget that when the 14th was "adopted" the southern states were under martial fucking law.


The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity." [Cite 3]

 

[Contumacious]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Oh, but you forgot to bold the rest that is relevant. Here, I will help:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So the scumbag did not want the states to secede during his watch.

Slavery was NOT the issue.


.

Of course slavery was the issue. It had been the hotbutton issue since fucking 1820.

How stupid can you possibly be? Oh wait, please don't answer that. I just had dinner.

Abraham Lincoln simply stated the obvious: he was willing to do whatever it would take to preserve the Union.

But I can understand why an asswipe like you would call one of our greatest presidents a "scumbag".

Got news for you: he moved history. He was a real somebody. You will never move history. You are a nobody, and a disgusting one at that.

Which is akin to saying that the paramount object in removing a cancerous tumor is the technical quality of the surgery - who cares if the patient dies in the process.


.


.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hard to believe that in the year 2015, some regressives are still knuckle-dragging enough to think that the Civil War was not related to slavery and that somehow, babies born in the USA are bad for us.

Weird, very, very weird.

Hard to believe that government supremacists such as yourself forget that when the 14th was "adopted" the southern states were under martial fucking law.


The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity." [Cite 3]

As if I am going to give a fuck what the Texas legislature had to say in 1866. The South had just lost a war it should never have started. Did I give a fuck what the remaining nazis had to say after 1945? Nope. The same applies to the fucked-up, hard-core racists of the South after it got it's ass handed to itself. Texas should be thankful it was not demoted to a territory, after all the shit the South pulled.

But I can understand your nullification attitude. You are a nullification type.

Good luck with that!!

Again, the South was under martial law because it lost a war it should never have started.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only a full-idiot-full-racist type writes that kind of bullshit.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Oh, but you forgot to bold the rest that is relevant. Here, I will help:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So the scumbag did not want the states to secede during his watch.

Slavery was NOT the issue.


.

Of course slavery was the issue. It had been the hotbutton issue since fucking 1820.

How stupid can you possibly be? Oh wait, please don't answer that. I just had dinner.

Abraham Lincoln simply stated the obvious: he was willing to do whatever it would take to preserve the Union.

But I can understand why an asswipe like you would call one of our greatest presidents a "scumbag".

Got news for you: he moved history. He was a real somebody. You will never move history. You are a nobody, and a disgusting one at that.

Which is akin to saying that the paramount object in removing a cancerous tumor is the technical quality of the surgery - who cares if the patient dies in the process.


.


.

.

Putting your weird fantasies aside, NO, that is not what it means.

 

[Contumacious]

What do you call anchor babies?

Legal US citizens, according to the law of this land.

You do understand that very simple principle, right?

Have you actually read the 14th Amendment? It does not grant automatic US Citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

Section 1. 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, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are governed by treaties and international law.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment

United States nationality law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. I will forgive your stupidity, but only for now.

The moment a new human being is born on US Soil, that person is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That person's parents may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but that newborn IS. That was the VERY purpose for the 14th amendment.

Then explain why the writers of the 14th inserted that caveat?

It's not a caveat. It was legalese of the day and still is today.

You realize that this bullshit has already been argued and shot down many times, right?

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:


"Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.

This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right.

The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of eleven co-equal States." [Cite 5]

 

[bripat9643]

The traitorous left ignores our immigration laws, they intentionally undermine our immigration laws, they refuse to enforce our immigration laws, enabling this problem then they have the nerve to shake the US Constitution at us?

Yes, not sure you realize just how fascist we would have to become to enforce immigration laws to the satisfaction of you people, or maybe you do and just don't mind living in a country where thousands of doors are kicked in and people are dragged off in the middle of the night.

Can you give an example of this "fascism" you think is required?

 

[occupied]

Hard to believe that in the year 2015, some regressives are still knuckle-dragging enough to think that the Civil War was not related to slavery and that somehow, babies born in the USA are bad for us.

Weird, very, very weird.

Hard to believe that government supremacists such as yourself forget that when the 14th was "adopted" the southern states were under martial fucking law.


The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity." [Cite 3]

Secessions, like elections, have consequences.

 

[bripat9643]

The traitorous left ignores our immigration laws, they intentionally undermine our immigration laws, they refuse to enforce our immigration laws, enabling this problem then they have the nerve to shake the US Constitution at us?

Yes, not sure you realize just how fascist we would have to become to enforce immigration laws to the satisfaction of you people, or maybe you do and just don't mind living in a country where thousands of doors are kicked in and people are dragged off in the middle of the night.

Look don't be a dumb ass.

Right back at-cha. You immigrant haters talk a lot of shit but actually have no idea just how backed-up things actually are or how we would have to throw due process and property rights in the trash to throw people out as fast as you want.

We know that is just a horseshit excuse for doing nothing.

 

[occupied]

Legal US citizens, according to the law of this land.

You do understand that very simple principle, right?

Have you actually read the 14th Amendment? It does not grant automatic US Citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

Section 1. 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, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are governed by treaties and international law.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment

United States nationality law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. I will forgive your stupidity, but only for now.

The moment a new human being is born on US Soil, that person is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That person's parents may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but that newborn IS. That was the VERY purpose for the 14th amendment.

Then explain why the writers of the 14th inserted that caveat?

It's not a caveat. It was legalese of the day and still is today.

You realize that this bullshit has already been argued and shot down many times, right?

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:


"Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.

This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right.

The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of eleven co-equal States." [Cite 5]

Giant print does not make you any less wrong in your interpretation. The spoils of war include the winner deciding what happens to the loser. It could have been much, much worse.

 

[bripat9643]

Hard to believe that in the year 2015, some regressives are still knuckle-dragging enough to think that the Civil War was not related to slavery and that somehow, babies born in the USA are bad for us.

Weird, very, very weird.

Hard to believe that government supremacists such as yourself forget that when the 14th was "adopted" the southern states were under martial fucking law.


The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity." [Cite 3]

Secessions, like elections, have consequences.

Murder also has consequences. Apparently you think the victim deserves it.