Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.
If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.
If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.
If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.
If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
If you're trying to get rid of the 14th, that's very weak ground to try and do so. It's better if the SC would rule that the 14th doesn't apply to anchor babies because it was never written for anchor babies.
”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.
If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?
* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet
* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons
* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them
* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased
Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.
Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.””the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Citizens of The United States
Now, take a look at this:
"This created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state...
This had nothing to do with jurisdiction over state citizens at the time...
Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 head note 8. "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state."
Notice carefully this case states "without those limits," meaning outside the United States federal jurisdiction (as in one of the several states), and also states "their" laws. This "naturalization" was the legal method blacks were granted citizenship of this (their) federal government, making them a "federal "U.S." citizen."
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43, 47.) "No white person born within the limits of the United States, ... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent Amendments to the Federal Constitution."
14th Amendment
It appears the courts are not in agreement with your opinion.
There is a difference between the two. Other than those born prior to the Constitution, a naturalized citizen cannot be president of the United States.”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.
Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.””the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Citizens of The United States
Now, take a look at this:
"This created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state...
This had nothing to do with jurisdiction over state citizens at the time...
Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 head note 8. "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state."
Notice carefully this case states "without those limits," meaning outside the United States federal jurisdiction (as in one of the several states), and also states "their" laws. This "naturalization" was the legal method blacks were granted citizenship of this (their) federal government, making them a "federal "U.S." citizen."
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43, 47.) "No white person born within the limits of the United States, ... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent Amendments to the Federal Constitution."
14th Amendment
It appears the courts are not in agreement with your opinion.
That’s demonstrably not true. It’s called, concurrent jurisdiction and it’s at least as old as the Constitution where it refers to citizens of both the United States and the states...
Article. I.
Section. 1.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Section. 2.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Section. 3.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article III.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article. IV.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
So the 14th Amendment couldn’t have created concurrent jurisdiction ...
... because you can’t create something which already existed.
LOLOL”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
How many cases have you litigated?
LOLOL”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
How many cases have you litigated?
I understand English. You? Not so much, apparently.
I just showed you where concurrent jurisdiction exists in the Articles of the Constitution. If you’re entire position depends on an appeal to authority, then you’re tacitly confessing you can’t defend your position with sound reasoning”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.””the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Citizens of The United States
Now, take a look at this:
"This created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state...
This had nothing to do with jurisdiction over state citizens at the time...
Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 head note 8. "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state."
Notice carefully this case states "without those limits," meaning outside the United States federal jurisdiction (as in one of the several states), and also states "their" laws. This "naturalization" was the legal method blacks were granted citizenship of this (their) federal government, making them a "federal "U.S." citizen."
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43, 47.) "No white person born within the limits of the United States, ... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent Amendments to the Federal Constitution."
14th Amendment
It appears the courts are not in agreement with your opinion.
That’s demonstrably not true. It’s called, concurrent jurisdiction and it’s at least as old as the Constitution where it refers to citizens of both the United States and the states...
Article. I.
Section. 1.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Section. 2.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Section. 3.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article III.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article. IV.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
So the 14th Amendment couldn’t have created concurrent jurisdiction ...
... because you can’t create something which already existed.
You're arguing against lawyers. And how many 14th Amendment cases have you litigated?
That case you cited doesn’t apply to me. So do you have any argument of your own to make? Like trying to prove the Constitution had NOT already created concurrent jurisdiction long before the 14th Amendment?LOLOL”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
How many cases have you litigated?
I understand English. You? Not so much, apparently.
I understand what a deflection is. Quite frankly, if case law disagrees with your opinion, I tend to stick with the precedents. They're binding; your opinion is not.
I just showed you where concurrent jurisdiction exists in the Articles of the Constitution. If you’re entire position depends on an appeal to authority, then you’re tacitly confessing you can’t defend your position with sound reasoning”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.””the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Citizens of The United States
Now, take a look at this:
"This created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state...
This had nothing to do with jurisdiction over state citizens at the time...
Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 head note 8. "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state."
Notice carefully this case states "without those limits," meaning outside the United States federal jurisdiction (as in one of the several states), and also states "their" laws. This "naturalization" was the legal method blacks were granted citizenship of this (their) federal government, making them a "federal "U.S." citizen."
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43, 47.) "No white person born within the limits of the United States, ... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent Amendments to the Federal Constitution."
14th Amendment
It appears the courts are not in agreement with your opinion.
That’s demonstrably not true. It’s called, concurrent jurisdiction and it’s at least as old as the Constitution where it refers to citizens of both the United States and the states...
Article. I.
Section. 1.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Section. 2.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Section. 3.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article III.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article. IV.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
So the 14th Amendment couldn’t have created concurrent jurisdiction ...
... because you can’t create something which already existed.
You're arguing against lawyers. And how many 14th Amendment cases have you litigated?
”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.I agree with you 100 percent in principle up to one point.
Here is the disconnect:
The people who harp on illegal immigration want everybody to come in legally as they call it. Legal is code for citizen. So, back to my million dollar question: How come the right is committed to their own destruction?
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this won. Void the 14th Amendment. Get rid of it. Problem solved.
Well if that were possible, I'm sure they would. But you're not going to see a constitutional amendment at anytime in your life no matter what the issue.
We did not need a constitutional Amendment to get rid of the 14th. That's my whole point. The 14th Amendment was being challenged on the basis that it was illegally ratified; that it eviscerated the Bill of Rights; the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
In the 1990s the constitutionalists had this. The right undone the gains constitutionalists made because they do not understand the issues and, consequently the strategies. Once you make a law unenforceable and nobody supports it, it will never be used. Ultimately, a court can simply void the law. It did not pass constitutional muster.
None of this answers the question I had.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
How many cases have you litigated?
That case you cited doesn’t apply to me. So do you have any argument of your own to make? Like trying to prove the Constitution had NOT already created concurrent jurisdiction long before the 14th Amendment?LOLOL”the 14th Amendment creates two classes of citizens.
The 14th Amendment did no such thing. Those two classes already existed. Even before it was ratified, ALL citizens were already either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.
Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.
How many cases have you litigated?
I understand English. You? Not so much, apparently.
I understand what a deflection is. Quite frankly, if case law disagrees with your opinion, I tend to stick with the precedents. They're binding; your opinion is not.
