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

[Rotagilla]

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

that's right...call people you disagree with names instead of discussing the topic. Brilliant debating strategy...LMAO...

 

[ogibillm]

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Ark's parents was not here illegally.
They were legal under California's Domicile Laws at that time and legal under the 14th Amendment which states subject to the the Jurisdiction thereof.

are you trying to argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the united states? when they commit a crime, are illegal immigrants immune from prosecution?

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

We'll see.

 

[BULLDOG]

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!

It didn't take that many lines to illustrate you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

that's right...call people you disagree with names instead of discussing the topic. Brilliant debating strategy...LMAO...

I don't debate idiots unless I'm in the mood to laugh at them. Levin is a whining idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Won't happen. Trump will not use the EO, and Congress would never pass such a law.

Your guy, who is better than all of the far right candidates, is a progressive statist, and he will betray you on the immigrants.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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!

It didn't take that many lines to illustrate you have no idea what you are talking about.

That's fair, you have NO IDEA about anything! It's a wonder you can breathe, and type at the same time! Clownface!

What ever you say sweet lips. what excuse are you going to use when yet another silly claim by the right is finally shown to be just more crap?
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?)

 

[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.

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!

I'll try to dumb it down further, just to cater to your particular special needs:

Birthright citizenship was the standard before the 14th Amendment.

It was the standard before the supreme court existed.

It was the standard before any restrictive immigration law.

It was the standard before congress was given power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" for those born elsewhere.

That is all.

 

[Rotagilla]

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...

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?

LMAO...whiny talk show host who graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Temple college at 19 and earned his Juris Doctorate from Temple in 1980....and is an accomplished lawyer who has written several best sellers on government and worked in the u.s government for years .Go look it up for yourself..he knows what he's talking about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It won't happen because Trump will never be president and Congress alone can't 'change' the Constitution through the legislative process.

That some on the right are so ignorant and hateful as to believe this idiocy comes as no surprise.

 

[1stRambo]

As only The Great One can explain!

Yo, the 14th Amendment says Trump can kick all illegals out, including Anchor Babies!!! Go Trump! The News Broadcasters are just stupid people who have no clue!!!

A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read more at: Birthright Citizenship Not Mandated by Constitution | National Review Online

Yo, the legalization of illegals is Un-Constitutional! And Obama being a Constitutional Student knows this, so I say throw the bum in jail and throw away the key!!!


"GTP"

 

[BULLDOG]

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...

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?

LMAO...whiny talk show host who graduated from summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Temple college at 19 and earned his Juris Doctorate from Temple in 1980....and is an accomplished lawyer who has written several best sellers on government ...he knows what he's talking about.

Everybody knows what he is talking about. What ever it takes to keep crazy right wingers stirred up and listening to him.

 

[Rotagilla]

Well I guess that means you win. All you have to do is make a phone call, and I'm sure Washington will get right on that. They might even give you an award for finding something that all those constitutional scholars never knew was in there. Let me know how that works out for you.

LMAO..the "constitutional scholar" in the white house thinks there are 57 states and that the constitution was written 2000 years ago.
I'll take levin, thanks.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well I guess that means you win. All you have to do is make a phone call, and I'm sure Washington will get right on that. They might even give you an award for finding something that all those constitutional scholars never knew was in there. Let me know how that works out for you.

LMAO..the "constitutional scholar" in the white house thinks there are 57 states and that the constitution was written 2000 years ago.
I'll take levin, thanks.

Oh my....I'll bet he's the first president to misspeak on such a non important subject.

 

[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!

I'll try to dumb it down further, just to cater to your particular special needs:

Birthright citizenship was the standard before the 14th Amendment.

It was the standard before the supreme court existed.

It was the standard before any restrictive immigration law.

It was the standard before congress was given power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" for those born elsewhere.

That is all.

It's a bitch for you when the law changed it! But thanks for playing! By your definition Blacks were citizens, & Indians were citizens before "a uniform rule of naturalization"....LOLOL!

 

[Rotagilla]

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...

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?

LMAO...whiny talk show host who graduated from summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Temple college at 19 and earned his Juris Doctorate from Temple in 1980....and is an accomplished lawyer who has written several best sellers on government ...he knows what he's talking about.

Everybody knows what he is talking about. What ever it takes to keep crazy right wingers stirred up and listening to him.

sure..sure..whatever you say...Nothing to see here...just another angry, bitter hyperpartisan.

 

[Rotagilla]

Well I guess that means you win. All you have to do is make a phone call, and I'm sure Washington will get right on that. They might even give you an award for finding something that all those constitutional scholars never knew was in there. Let me know how that works out for you.

LMAO..the "constitutional scholar" in the white house thinks there are 57 states and that the constitution was written 2000 years ago.
I'll take levin, thanks.

Oh my....I'll bet he's the first president to misspeak on such a non important subject.

LMAO...3rd graders know how many states there are....they might have to get into 5th or 6th grade before they learn when the constitution was written...*Pro Tip*..it wasn't 2000 years ago.

 

[g5000]

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.)

That is a lie. The ONLY condition US v Wong Kim Ark placed on citizenship was US jurisdiction. There was no requirement for the parents to be legal residents or gainfully employed.

Liar.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

As for the 14th amendment, the sponsor of that amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.

Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."


So you are wrong, Vigilante.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right are being played by Mark Levin for $$$.

He's good at it. Any lawyer is good at it.

 

[g5000]

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898. The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.