Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[2aguy]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

 

[JakeStarkey]

"These children are here through no fault of their own" say the bleeding hearts. Well I don't want to have to pay their bills...through no fault of my own.

Doesn't matter, sonny, as my granny used to say.

If that doesn't matter, then nothing matters. Get your gun and let's roll!

You, podjo, are no threat to anyone, particularly me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Nope. It is SCOTUS property.

 

[deltex1]

"These children are here through no fault of their own" say the bleeding hearts. Well I don't want to have to pay their bills...through no fault of my own.

Doesn't matter, sonny, as my granny used to say.

If that doesn't matter, then nothing matters. Get your gun and let's roll!

You, podjo, are no threat to anyone, particularly me.

Oh..I thought you were on my side...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

 

[deltex1]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

 

[Syriusly]

At most, Congress could pass a law with the intent to revoke the 14th Amendment's clear wording on 'born in America'- and that would eventually reach the Supreme Court- which would then have to either:
a) rule on the constitutionality of the bill or
b) refuse to rule and let the law stand.

I think it would be a waste of Congress's time- however certainly Congress could legally pursue this route.

But considering Congress can't pass any immigration reform- they won't touch this idea with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Syriusly]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Plenty agree on what the rule of law is- and there will always be some who disagree.

Heck there are still people who believe that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Today is no different in that way than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deltex, I am not a far right reactionary American. I am a mainstream Republican. I believe in Rule of Law not Rule of Man. If you can do what you want by Rule of Law without violating civil liberties, I will back you 100%.

Seems hard to do things by rule of law when none agree what the law says.

My point was when we reach the point that none can determine what the law means, it's time to revolt...as the Founders foresaw.

Almost all agree with the Rule of Law in America, with the exception of the 15% on the far right and libertarian wings. Be advised: to be silly in your case won't work well to your advantage.

 

[BULLDOG]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

This is your refute?

Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"

Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?

Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.

Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.

Nothing dishonest about an answer that covers the question. Obviously the right thinks Levin, or trump, or some other rattlehead found a magic phrase that will solve all your fears and worries about immigration, and I say it won't work. That's about as far as we need to go. If you think your little idea is valid, then you don't need to be wasting time here. Show what kind of a man you are and demand that somebody do something about it. If your little phrase is that forceful and definitive, we should be hearing about congressional hearitngs by tomorrow night.

No I am just pointed out how dishonest the left and you are.

Always post half truths, so you can trick the uninformed, if you say you know the 14th so well you know it was written for slaves, it didn't include Indians or foreign ambassadors children born here.

God damb I personally think some one born on US soil is an American
Like said in this thread in the CDZ

CDZ - Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you just want to attack a talk show host because you don't like information put out there for people to learn more about something? And your refute was to just post part of the 14th amendment?

But hey why should I be surprised that's all your ilk does... Attack messengers and post half truths.

No, My refute was a simple "You're wrong". The 14th is why you are wrong.
OK...I get it. I admit I am not a constitutional scholar and must rely on people who are. You don't really know more about it than I do, but you think some talking head has found a secret phrase that proves all the constitutional scholars wrong. That doesn't sound reasonable to me, but I guess it is for a right winger.

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Don't be an idiot, Levin knows what he's talking about when it comes to the law and the constitution. Everything you know would fit in about 2% of his brain.

Levin growing up

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

You have to listen and open your mind.

I am open minded, but not so much till by brain falls out

 

[BULLDOG]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.

• 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
  www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
  Library of Congress
  
  Loading...

The author of the 14th amendment. Senator Howard, wrote an essay about the amendment so it would not be misconstrued.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Oddly, his essay wasn't part of what was voted on when the 14th was ratified.

 

[BULLDOG]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Of course it was originally, and then they wrote the 14th to codify their decision. At that point it's out of their hands and goes to the Supremes to interpret it.

 

[Agit8r]

As only The Great One can explain!

All that told me is that Mark Levin is willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter what percentage of population doesn't believe in birthright citizenship, because every one of those people is utterly ignorant of American history. Being born in this country (with the singular aberration of slavery--a difference formally put to rest by the Fourteenth Amendment) was ALWAYS the only necessary qualification for citizenship.

If it was otherwise, an "anchor baby" could not have become the 7th president of the United States.

 

[Vigilante]

As only The Great One can explain!

All that told me is that Mark Levin is willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter what percentage of population doesn't believe in birthright citizenship, because every one of those people is utterly ignorant of American history. Being born in this country (with the singular aberration of slavery--a difference formally put to rest by the Fourteenth Amendment) was ALWAYS the only necessary qualification for citizenship.

If it was otherwise, an "anchor baby" could not have become the 7th president of the United States.

To a subversive cocksucker of course he's ignorant! The 2 digit IQ of the fucked up left, listening to The Constitution and NOT having the brains to understand that being BORN HERE means shit (it even states that a child born here by an ambassador of another country is NOT a citizen, so why would someone that ILLEGALLY enters here from another country GET citizenship?)

7th President????? There were NO FUCKING LAWS that effected him when president, as the 14th Amendment STILL wouldn't cover anything about him....and genius, when was the 14th amendment passed.... Subversive assholes, so easy to bitch slap!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are drinking early, boyo.

Scream all you want, but Congress can't and won't end the citizenship for babies born here iaw the 14th.

Start an amendment process and stop whining.



And, nope, you are not going to get to the store tonight.

 

[Agit8r]

As only The Great One can explain!

All that told me is that Mark Levin is willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter what percentage of population doesn't believe in birthright citizenship, because every one of those people is utterly ignorant of American history. Being born in this country (with the singular aberration of slavery--a difference formally put to rest by the Fourteenth Amendment) was ALWAYS the only necessary qualification for citizenship.

If it was otherwise, an "anchor baby" could not have become the 7th president of the United States.

To a subversive cocksucker of course he's ignorant! The 2 digit IQ of the fucked up left, listening to The Constitution and NOT having the brains to understand that being BORN HERE means shit (it even states that a child born here by an ambassador of another country is NOT a citizen, so why would someone that ILLEGALLY enters here from another country GET citizenship?)

7th President????? There were NO FUCKING LAWS that effected him when president, as the 14th Amendment STILL wouldn't cover anything about him....and genius, when was the 14th amendment passed.... Subversive assholes, so easy to bitch slap!

I can hardly be surprised when someone who has no knowledge of history can barely read as well. I'll try and dumb it down for you:

The 14th Amendment made birthright citizenship universal.

Before that it was the standard for all non-slaves, as with Andrew Jackson, whose parents were immigrants, living in an immigrant community.

We know that Andrew Jackson was considered an American citizen because he was eligible to become president.

Being born is not a crime in this country, so ignorant ramblings about a newborn baby being "illegal" means nothing to anyone with a brain.

 

[Vigilante]

You are drinking early, boyo.

Scream all you want, but Congress can't and won't end the citizenship for babies born here iaw the 14th.

Start an amendment process and stop whining.



And, nope, you are not going to get to the store tonight.

President Trump, if he wants to can have SCOTUS rule on it, as they have never made it Constitutional law...OR with a Congress under Republican rule, and with the POWER of THE TRUMP as president, "BONER' and the "BITCH MITCH" shall be history, and as stated in the 14th Amendment Congress has the power to decide. Will be of interest, subversive!

 

[Vigilante]

As only The Great One can explain!

All that told me is that Mark Levin is willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter what percentage of population doesn't believe in birthright citizenship, because every one of those people is utterly ignorant of American history. Being born in this country (with the singular aberration of slavery--a difference formally put to rest by the Fourteenth Amendment) was ALWAYS the only necessary qualification for citizenship.

If it was otherwise, an "anchor baby" could not have become the 7th president of the United States.

To a subversive cocksucker of course he's ignorant! The 2 digit IQ of the fucked up left, listening to The Constitution and NOT having the brains to understand that being BORN HERE means shit (it even states that a child born here by an ambassador of another country is NOT a citizen, so why would someone that ILLEGALLY enters here from another country GET citizenship?)

7th President????? There were NO FUCKING LAWS that effected him when president, as the 14th Amendment STILL wouldn't cover anything about him....and genius, when was the 14th amendment passed.... Subversive assholes, so easy to bitch slap!

I can hardly be surprised when someone who has no knowledge of history can barely read as well. I'll try and dumb it down for you:

The 14th Amendment made birthright citizenship universal.

Before that it was the standard for all non-slaves, as with Andrew Jackson, whose parents were immigrants, living in an immigrant community.

We know that Andrew Jackson was considered an American citizen because he was eligible to become president.

Being born is not a crime in this country, so ignorant ramblings about a newborn baby being "illegal" means nothing to anyone with a brain.

ROTFLMFAO...... No, it didn't... let me educate a fucking 2 digit IQ'd liberal!

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

But THIS shit is what you left wing subversives want.... You fuckers should all be dispatched, as soon as possible to save the Republic from becoming Venezuela!