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.
Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer
Levin sounds like Cartman whining to his mother.
Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer
Sorry to break your bubble but Mark Levin is not a constitutional lawyer just a regular one. Obama was a constitutional law lecturer (professor)...
Obama would chew Levin up for breakfast in constitutional law.
And just a small comparison, How many Obama's Law school became Supreme court justices compared to Levin's law school?
What district court covers those 7 states?
Obama chooming when they were teaching Judicial Review
Levin is not telling the truth.Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer
Levin sounds like Cartman whining to his mother.
well THAT explains a lot...your cultural references are cartoons on tv...brilliant.
I don't care what he "sounds" like...as long as he tells the truth...and he does..he knows there are bitter, angry hyperpartisans listening who want to see if they can catch him.
Why don't you address something he specifically said and refute it....or go watch some more cartoons...whichever is easier
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.
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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer
Sorry to break your bubble but Mark Levin is not a constitutional lawyer just a regular one. Obama was a constitutional law lecturer (professor)...
Obama would chew Levin up for breakfast in constitutional law.
And just a small comparison, How many Obama's Law school became Supreme court justices compared to Levin's law school?
What district court covers those 7 states?
Obama chooming when they were teaching Judicial Review
That all you got? He misspoke........big deal.
Swing and a miss...strike three.....nice try...didn't work, though...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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
we have seven years worth of proof he doesn't.Obama would chew Levin up for breakfast in constitutional law.
...
i would like to see proof that O'Husseinbama knows anything about the Constitutio,
Read it, again, Vigi, you have it backwards. Again. Your interp is not the one followed.
The nativist right wingers want to redefinemarriagecitizenship and go against centuries of tradition and once again deny rights to American citizens.
Ilegals, by definition, are under US jurisdiction. If they are not under US jurisdiction, then they aren't breaking any law. Ipso facto.Swing and a miss...strike three.....nice try...didn't work, though...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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
"It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
Unfortunately, Jacob Howard overestimated the intelligence of nativists.
and none of that has anything to do with children born to illegal alien parents...swing and a miss...strike three...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.
Q. How does that impact children born in the United States?
A. It has no effect, children born in the United States are United States Citizens.
Naturalization Eligibility Requirements
Before an individual applies for naturalization, he or she must meet a few requirements. Depending on the individual’s situation, there are different requirements that may apply. General requirements for naturalization are below.
***Felons need not apply
- Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
- Be a permanent resident (have a “Green Card”) for at least 5 years.
- Show that you have lived for at least 3 months in the state or USCIS district where you apply.
- Demonstrate continuous residence in the United States for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400.
- Show that you have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400.
- Be able to read, write, and speak basic English.
- Have a basic understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
- Be a person of good moral character.***
- Demonstrate an attachment to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution.
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!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.
Ilegals, by definition, are under US jurisdiction. If they are not under US jurisdiction, then they aren't breaking any law. Ipso facto.Swing and a miss...strike three.....nice try...didn't work, though...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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
The Supreme Court, and the very sponsor of the 14th amendment himself, have said anyone born under US jurisdiction is a US citizen.
So you are the one who has struck out.
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!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.
No law has changed it. The Fourteenth Amendment merely clarified it for the bigots of that age (and for the bigots of this, if they were to have the brain-power to see clearly)
well, that settles it...when a liberal abandons any pretense of supporting their position and starts calling people names, you know you have them on the run.Levin is as much an idiot as Trump, and just as wrong
