If you support Trump ending Birthright Citizenship via executive order you're a hypocrite.

[Wayne Adams]

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.

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?

As many as I need to understand the topic at hand. How many years have you taught Political Science and American History?

A couple of decades. And you?

 

[Unkotare]

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.

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?

As many as I need to understand the topic at hand. How many years have you taught Political Science and American History?

A couple of decades. And you?

25

 

[Faun]

For those who are serious about the problem and want some valid input from serious researchers:

Thoughts and Stuff: Two Classes of Citizens in America? Apartheid? Definitions of Citizenship ...

Two classes of Citizen

2 Classes of Citizens

Now those are some pretty well thought out positions - if you want all the facts.

What utter garbage. It’s actually claiming a conspiracy as though there’s a diabolical difference in the meaning between “Citizen” and “citizen,” when in fact, proper old English capitalized nouns. It’s rife like that throughout the Articles of the Constitution; as well as the Declaration of Independence and even the early Amendments.

And a “federal citizen” is a citizen of the United States.

Which dates back to the Constitution. It was not created by the 14th Amendment.

What on Earth do you think they meant by a ”natural born Citizen?”

 

[Faun]

”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.

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...

• 
  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."

This had nothing to do with jurisdiction over state citizens at the time...

• 
  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."

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."

14th Amendment

It appears the courts are not in agreement with your opinion.

”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.”

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 ...

create

to bring into existence​

... because you can’t create something which already existed.

You're arguing against lawyers. And how many 14th Amendment cases have you litigated?

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

You have proven nothing and my previous posts destroys your argument. Remember, if I do more than five or six paragraphs, those who confuse this board with Twitter will be accusing me of putting up "walls of text."

That’s true, I didn’t prove you wrong, the Constitution did as it contained examples of concurrent jurisdiction.

 

[Faun]

Those are not two classes, both are fully US citizens.

How many cases have you litigated?

LOLOL

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.

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?

See my previous post regard "walls of text." But, yes, I DO have a valid legal argument. So, I ask again: How many cases have you litigated?

None yet. When are you going to acquire reading comprehension skills?

 

[Redfish]

what we need is a SC review of the language of the 14th amendment. Many, including me, believe that it is being misinterpreted when in confers citizenship on children born here of people here illegally. Its intent was to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, the children of mothers in this country illegally.

 

[Redfish]

If being conservative means looking the other way while millions of mexicans invade the nation then count me out of your gay little club.

Trump's caravan bogeyman is a midterm red herring hoax to distract from real issues like healthcare.

How the FUCK are we going to have a functional socialist utopia when we keep letting in millions of lazy foreigners who leech off the system?

Funny. They built this country - after whitey stole it from Native Americans.

the founders of this country did not steal it from the Indians, it was not a country until the founders declared independence from England, prior to that it was land claimed be several nations. It was not the united states of American Indians.

 

[Wayne Adams]

For those who are serious about the problem and want some valid input from serious researchers:

Thoughts and Stuff: Two Classes of Citizens in America? Apartheid? Definitions of Citizenship ...

Two classes of Citizen

2 Classes of Citizens

Now those are some pretty well thought out positions - if you want all the facts.

What utter garbage. It’s actually claiming a conspiracy as though there’s a diabolical difference in the meaning between “Citizen” and “citizen,” when in fact, proper old English capitalized nouns. It’s rife like that throughout the Articles of the Constitution; as well as the Declaration of Independence and even the early Amendments.

And a “federal citizen” is a citizen of the United States.

Which dates back to the Constitution. It was not created by the 14th Amendment.

What on Earth do you think they meant by a ”natural born Citizen?”

So if you don't agree, then it's garbage. This board might go down if you weren't around to school all of us morons. NOT.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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...

• 
  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."

This had nothing to do with jurisdiction over state citizens at the time...

• 
  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."

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."

14th Amendment

It appears the courts are not in agreement with your opinion.

”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.”

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 ...

create

to bring into existence​

... because you can’t create something which already existed.

You're arguing against lawyers. And how many 14th Amendment cases have you litigated?

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

You have proven nothing and my previous posts destroys your argument. Remember, if I do more than five or six paragraphs, those who confuse this board with Twitter will be accusing me of putting up "walls of text."

That’s true, I didn’t prove you wrong, the Constitution did as it contained examples of concurrent jurisdiction.

And the courts proved your interpretation wrong. You have the Right to be wrong in your opinions. I support that.

 

[Faun]

For those who are serious about the problem and want some valid input from serious researchers:

Thoughts and Stuff: Two Classes of Citizens in America? Apartheid? Definitions of Citizenship ...

Two classes of Citizen

2 Classes of Citizens

Now those are some pretty well thought out positions - if you want all the facts.

What utter garbage. It’s actually claiming a conspiracy as though there’s a diabolical difference in the meaning between “Citizen” and “citizen,” when in fact, proper old English capitalized nouns. It’s rife like that throughout the Articles of the Constitution; as well as the Declaration of Independence and even the early Amendments.

And a “federal citizen” is a citizen of the United States.

Which dates back to the Constitution. It was not created by the 14th Amendment.

What on Earth do you think they meant by a ”natural born Citizen?”

So if you don't agree, then it's garbage. This board might go down if you weren't around to school all of us morons. NOT.

You posted a fucking conspiracy. Who in their right mind can agree with that??

According to old English, the Second Amendment grants us the right to bear Arms, not arms. According to your conspiracy nonsense, that means we don’t have the right to bear arms.

Is any of this getting through to you??

 

[Faun]

”and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.”

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 ...

create

to bring into existence​

... because you can’t create something which already existed.

You're arguing against lawyers. And how many 14th Amendment cases have you litigated?

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

You have proven nothing and my previous posts destroys your argument. Remember, if I do more than five or six paragraphs, those who confuse this board with Twitter will be accusing me of putting up "walls of text."

That’s true, I didn’t prove you wrong, the Constitution did as it contained examples of concurrent jurisdiction.

And the courts proved your interpretation wrong. You have the Right to be wrong in your opinions. I support that.

No court in my jurisdiction did any such thing. And still, the Constitution reigns supreme and it provides examples of U.S. citizens AND citizens of states, proving concurrent jurisdiction.

I also note, you never answered... what do you think was meant by “natural born Citizen?”

 

[Wayne Adams]

For those who are serious about the problem and want some valid input from serious researchers:

Thoughts and Stuff: Two Classes of Citizens in America? Apartheid? Definitions of Citizenship ...

Two classes of Citizen

2 Classes of Citizens

Now those are some pretty well thought out positions - if you want all the facts.

What utter garbage. It’s actually claiming a conspiracy as though there’s a diabolical difference in the meaning between “Citizen” and “citizen,” when in fact, proper old English capitalized nouns. It’s rife like that throughout the Articles of the Constitution; as well as the Declaration of Independence and even the early Amendments.

And a “federal citizen” is a citizen of the United States.

Which dates back to the Constitution. It was not created by the 14th Amendment.

What on Earth do you think they meant by a ”natural born Citizen?”

So if you don't agree, then it's garbage. This board might go down if you weren't around to school all of us morons. NOT.

You posted a fucking conspiracy. Who in their right mind can agree with that??

According to old English, the Second Amendment grants us the right to bear Arms, not arms. According to your conspiracy nonsense, that means we don’t have the right to bear arms.

Is any of this getting through to you??

You're posting your opinion. I have offered other opinions, supported by facts. Now, no matter how many times your opinion is challenged and supported by fact, you aren't going to change it.

The difference between you and I, you think people are too freaking stupid to read something besides your opinion and draw their own conclusions. I'm not. That's why I quote several different sources and they are at odds sometimes - the only commonality really is that they disagree with your opinion.

 

[Faun]

For those who are serious about the problem and want some valid input from serious researchers:

Thoughts and Stuff: Two Classes of Citizens in America? Apartheid? Definitions of Citizenship ...

Two classes of Citizen

2 Classes of Citizens

Now those are some pretty well thought out positions - if you want all the facts.

What utter garbage. It’s actually claiming a conspiracy as though there’s a diabolical difference in the meaning between “Citizen” and “citizen,” when in fact, proper old English capitalized nouns. It’s rife like that throughout the Articles of the Constitution; as well as the Declaration of Independence and even the early Amendments.

And a “federal citizen” is a citizen of the United States.

Which dates back to the Constitution. It was not created by the 14th Amendment.

What on Earth do you think they meant by a ”natural born Citizen?”

So if you don't agree, then it's garbage. This board might go down if you weren't around to school all of us morons. NOT.

You posted a fucking conspiracy. Who in their right mind can agree with that??

According to old English, the Second Amendment grants us the right to bear Arms, not arms. According to your conspiracy nonsense, that means we don’t have the right to bear arms.

Is any of this getting through to you??

You're posting your opinion. I have offered other opinions, supported by facts. Now, no matter how many times your opinion is challenged and supported by fact, you aren't going to change it.

The difference between you and I, you think people are too freaking stupid to read something besides your opinion and draw their own conclusions. I'm not. That's why I quote several different sources and they are at odds sometimes - the only commonality really is that they disagree with your opinion.

LOLOL

You posted conspiracy nonsense claiming a “Citizen” is not the same as a “citizen” due to the capitalization.

That is not fact, I don’t care what anybody says.

 

[Wayne Adams]

You're arguing against lawyers. And how many 14th Amendment cases have you litigated?

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

You have proven nothing and my previous posts destroys your argument. Remember, if I do more than five or six paragraphs, those who confuse this board with Twitter will be accusing me of putting up "walls of text."

That’s true, I didn’t prove you wrong, the Constitution did as it contained examples of concurrent jurisdiction.

And the courts proved your interpretation wrong. You have the Right to be wrong in your opinions. I support that.

No court in my jurisdiction did any such thing. And still, the Constitution reigns supreme and it provides examples of U.S. citizens AND citizens of states, proving concurrent jurisdiction.

I also note, you never answered... what do you think was meant by “natural born Citizen?”

When you have access to court decisions such as I've provided you, then my personal opinion does not account for much. You would be better served to actually read the provided links and study the cases. You look silly when you comment on matters you have not read and researched. Fortunately for all of us here, you have NO monopoly on understanding.

 

[Faun]

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

You have proven nothing and my previous posts destroys your argument. Remember, if I do more than five or six paragraphs, those who confuse this board with Twitter will be accusing me of putting up "walls of text."

That’s true, I didn’t prove you wrong, the Constitution did as it contained examples of concurrent jurisdiction.

And the courts proved your interpretation wrong. You have the Right to be wrong in your opinions. I support that.

No court in my jurisdiction did any such thing. And still, the Constitution reigns supreme and it provides examples of U.S. citizens AND citizens of states, proving concurrent jurisdiction.

I also note, you never answered... what do you think was meant by “natural born Citizen?”

When you have access to court decisions such as I've provided you, then my personal opinion does not account for much. You would be better served to actually read the provided links and study the cases. You look silly when you comment on matters you have not read and researched. Fortunately for all of us here, you have NO monopoly on understanding.

I take it this means you’re refusing to say what you think the Constitution means when it says a requirement to be president is that they must be a “natural born Citizen?”

Figures since the answer to that utterly destroys your fragile position.