Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Dad2three]

That is not accurate. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark or just go to my post #30 on this thread!
There are a number of other cases I could cite also.

You comprehend NOTHING! The ruling you site is for the child of LEGAL immigrants, not ILLEGAL trash!

So lets see if I have this correct.............you are for people from another country determining if their child is a citizen of the United States by coming here ILLEGALLY, and dropping said baby here, and we have absolutely NOTHING to say, or can do about it? LOL, you are wrong, and SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, and neither does the President, it is congress according to section 1, article 8. What this means is, the only thing the President can do is choose to ignore the law, or get a constitutional amendment to change the law! Or, in Obamas case, BREAK the law; along with every democratic candidate running, and a few rinos too.

Wait and see, this is going to grow, and SCOTUS can't rule on anything in this matter. Since the repubs hold congress, watch and see how fast pressure is brought to bear, and next year is an election year, and 70% of the people are with us, which means that anyone in office against us, in many jurisdictions are OUT OF A JOB! Let us see how this also affects the Presidential election, now that the constitution is on our side, and anyone standing to stop it is AGAINST the constitution. Oh, this is gonna be good, real good!

If you had performed due diligence and had ACTUALLY READ the declaration by OK Texas that, "SCOTUS has never ruled on the citizenship of illegals", to which I responded with a citation to the contrary, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, you may, just may have not posted your totally off topic and inappropriate screed and embarrassed yourself.

Changing the narrative to whether Wong was the son of legal or illegal immigrants had absolutely nothing to do with the character, subject or context my exchange with another poster.

Your supercilious analysis is absolutely notwithstanding and a childlike fantasy, also!

Well, everyone can believe what they want, but it appears I am just as correct as you are on this issue, and the left better hope it comes out that way, although I have a feeling it will not!

If you go to youtube, you will find many a professor who explains it perfectly, but I will post the same words through a different narrator, just because I know it will drive the lefties crazy. Still, every professor that has posted their opinion follows the exact logic, so conservatives enjoy, lefties cry. Why? Because it very well be you are 100% wrong, and that means the lot of the left is now in severe jeopardy!

"Pride goeth before the fall." < Book of Proverbs >

Son, if you wish to delude yourself and claim some sort of victory, for who knows what at this point so as to assuage your embarrassment, take another swing at it. But take a little advice and for God's sake don't use EDITED VIDEOS from Fucking Faux News and/or YouTube as authoritative sources. That is just NUTS as well as PATHETIC!

Told you people the lefties wouldn't like it. Notice, EVERY professor who agree with the video I posted uses the EXACT, same, debate points. The lefties are left (a little levity there) holding the bag this time, as long as we control congress. And when I say, "control congress," I mean throwing out the rinos, and elect people who will put teeth into this while keeping their word to US!

And what that means is....................a congress who after enforcing their constitutional rights under said document, will have enough gonads to IMPEACH a President who does not follow his/her constitutional responsibility!

PLEASE impeach. *shaking head*

EXECUTIVE BRANCH DISCRETION!!!

 

[Roudy]

Trump is a performer, so most of these so called "unscripted" comments that sound outrageous are actually thought of and rehearsed from before. Going by the theory that no press is bad press, his main focus has been to somehow get the media's attention to keep talking about him and what he said, which has been the main driving force behind his rising in the polls. If you notice nobody's talking about any other GOP candidate but Trump, so he has run a brilliant campaign so far, manipulating the media to his advantage at every turn. At some point if and when he secures the nomination he will tone down, backtrack, or amend his comments. I am sure that he also has a plan for all the Hispanic voters that he's pissed off.

 

[Claudette]

According to this, there is no 14th amendment because it wasn't ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Its a law that's never been a law.

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Another nice write up on the 14th as well.


The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”

 

[danielpalos]

Trump is a performer, so most of these so called "unscripted" comments that sound outrageous are actually thought of and rehearsed from before. Going by the theory that no press is bad press, his main focus has been to somehow get the media's attention to keep talking about him and what he said, which has been the main driving force behind his rising in the polls. If you notice nobody's talking about any other GOP candidate but Trump, so he has run a brilliant campaign so far, manipulating the media to his advantage at every turn. At some point if and when he secures the nomination he will tone down, backtrack, or amend his comments. I am sure that he also has a plan for all the Hispanic voters that he's pissed off.

should we ask a Board of Directors for their suggestions for Capital performance metrics for our potential, Capital CEO of our Republic?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

According to this, there is no 14th amendment because it wasn't ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Its a law that's never been a law.

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Another nice write up on the 14th as well.


The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”

We were one country then, with a large occupied territory that lost its insurrection. They still haven't gotten over it.

 

[Claudette]

Seems the only way they could get some of the Southern States to ratifiy it was with threats.



Ratified amendment pre-certification, 1866–1868
Ratified amendment pre-certification after first rejecting it, 1868
Ratified amendment post-certification after first rejecting it, 1869–1976
Ratified amendment post-certification, 1959
Ratified amendment, withdrew ratification (rescission), then re-ratified
Territories of the United States in 1868, not yet states
Ratification of the amendment was bitterly contested. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[19] It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before "said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress".[20]

Seems those States had no choice. Either ratify it or they wouldn't get any representation in the Govt.

Threats seem to work and one has to wonder about the legality of those threats.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Seems the only way they could get some of the Southern States to ratifiy it was with threats.

Good, they lost while trying to keep the ******* from having equal rights.

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution has been amended before. Probably will be again sometime . In these uncertain times; I wouldn't rule anything out.

Amending the Constitution is NOT the same as declaring something unConstitutional.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution has been amended before. Probably will be again sometime . In these uncertain times; I wouldn't rule anything out.

Amending the Constitution is NOT the same as declaring something unConstitutional.

Correct, but it's gonna pretty hard to declare part of the Constitution unconstitutional...

 

[bodecea]

"On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane.

People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong.

The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?

The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide."

August 18, 2015 | MARK-CM

This will be even better if the RW uses Native Americans not being citizens as an argument to try to eliminate "anchor babies". Heck, why not alienate everybody!?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane.

People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong.

The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?

The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide."

August 18, 2015 | MARK-CM

This will be even better if the RW uses Native Americans not being citizens as an argument to try to eliminate "anchor babies". Heck, why not alienate everybody!?

The list is pretty short even now:

 

[bodecea]

Are you progressives actually going to NOW argue that an Amendment to a Constitution makes it part of that Constitution and therefore legitimate?

Cause I want to direct your attentions to Strauss v. Horton in which ALL you mofo's defended the ruling that the Amendment was "Unconstitutional".....

An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it part of the United States Constitution- which the 14th Amendments is.

An Amendment to the California State Constitution can be found to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution- which supercedes State's Constitution.

In fact, it does not.....

Unless of course, the 9th and 10th Amendments are not part of the Constitution.....oh wait, they are....

However, that was NOT My point.

My point is the hypocrisy of the progressives on this forum...

Its the Constitution when it suits them......Its UN-Constitutional when it suits them.

Now, that's an Ironic post.

 

[bodecea]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

The Patriots were not losers. The Con-federates were losers. Big difference.

 

[bodecea]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Regardless of how loud and long you protest, that will never fly. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the founders, the Revolutionaries rebelled against the despotic rule and tyrannical governance of Crazy King George III. Where was the Southern Declaration of Independence with the list of tyrannies perpetrated by the United States against them when the South initiated their REBELLION! I'm thinking you really need to look at Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution...better yet I'll post it for your lazy ass!

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." [Emphasis Added]

You are lucky that your ancestors of the Southern Rebellion were given amnesty by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States along with their traitorous conduct didn't taint your birthright by blood relationship!

Those who sided with and then took part in the Southern Rebellion were, indeed, TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Q.E.D.

But then, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." HUH!
~~George O.~~

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

The loser traitors in the South fired first. And then they lost the war they started. Sucks, don't it?

 

[bodecea]

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

They were no more "traitors" than the colonists (patriots) in 1776 who wanted to peacefully secede from england....england wouldn't have it and they invaded....exactly the same as lincoln.

Regardless of how loud and long you protest, that will never fly. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the founders, the Revolutionaries rebelled against the despotic rule and tyrannical governance of Crazy King George III. Where was the Southern Declaration of Independence with the list of tyrannies perpetrated by the United States against them when the South initiated their REBELLION! I'm thinking you really need to look at Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution...better yet I'll post it for your lazy ass!

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." [Emphasis Added]

You are lucky that your ancestors of the Southern Rebellion were given amnesty by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States along with their traitorous conduct didn't taint your birthright by blood relationship!

Those who sided with and then took part in the Southern Rebellion were, indeed, TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Q.E.D.

But then, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." HUH!
~~George O.~~

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

When US forces attempted to "invade to reinforce the fort" [Sumter, a Federal fortification], that was an act of rebellion. You must live in an alternate universe to state otherwise!

the fort didn't belong to them any more. The south even paid the union for many federal properties and arranged safe passage for any troops or civilians there.
lincoln hoped that by sailing ships right into charleston, though...the capital city of the confederacy..he could provoke the south and that would give him the casus belli excuse he needed...
shed your anti white, anti southern bias and read some history... or try to debunk any of the quotes from the people there at the time...the whole world was watching...educate yourself on this subject.

Said the loser traitors.

 

[bodecea]

Regardless of how loud and long you protest, that will never fly. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the founders, the Revolutionaries rebelled against the despotic rule and tyrannical governance of Crazy King George III. Where was the Southern Declaration of Independence with the list of tyrannies perpetrated by the United States against them when the South initiated their REBELLION! I'm thinking you really need to look at Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution...better yet I'll post it for your lazy ass!

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." [Emphasis Added]

You are lucky that your ancestors of the Southern Rebellion were given amnesty by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States along with their traitorous conduct didn't taint your birthright by blood relationship!

Those who sided with and then took part in the Southern Rebellion were, indeed, TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Q.E.D.

But then, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." HUH!
~~George O.~~

The south didn't "rebel"..the south tried to peacefully secede....There is no "rule" that you have to publish a "declaration of independence" before you secede..there was no "treason"...What drivel...
We weren't asking permission...
when the north tried to invade to reinforce the fort...which was no longer their property, the south did what any patriots do when their country is invaded..repel the invaders.
You hate the south and southerners..ok..We don't care...but to lie and spread disinformation only makes you look weak...anyone can go read the facts....and they are as stated.

When US forces attempted to "invade to reinforce the fort" [Sumter, a Federal fortification], that was an act of rebellion. You must live in an alternate universe to state otherwise!

the fort didn't belong to them any more. The south even paid the union for many federal properties and arranged safe passage for any troops or civilians there.t.

That is what the Confederate fanboys keep saying.

Meanwhile- rebel troops fired on American soldiers- which started the war.

No one forced South Carolina to decide to plunge America into a Civil War.

the north invaded a sovereign nation, the C.S.A.
.All patriots repel invasions.Just like the colonists did when the english invaded to try to force them to remain colonies ..read some history yankee fanboy.

The United States, after having it's military base attacked, severely punished the aggressors.....just like we did after Pearl Harbor.

 

[bodecea]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

There goes any shreads of credibility you had left.

 

[bodecea]

I am always bemused by the Confederate fanboys who, after 150 years, still defend an attempted rebel country that was created for the express purpose of maintaining human slavery.

the war wasn't fought to preserve..or end...slavery...

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans.

Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".


Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got as far as Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, and knew it was a hit piece and skipped the rest...
The south didn't start the war. The north invaded a sovereign country....patriots always repel invader.

Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."



From Texas' Declaration: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."


Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Confederates Speak: Yes, We Fought the Civil War Over Slavery

Oh stop..southerners and southern leaders knew slavery was going to fade on its own...the industrial revolution was beginning and it was easier and more efficient to use machines than farm animals. Machines didn't need to be fed, housed or clothed.

The cotton states were the ones who made sure to thumb their nose at the fed gvt by mentioning slaves in their constitutions.

The north forced the issue and the south had to address it..and they did by saying essentially that we'll handle our business and you keep out of it.
then the north invaded and the war criminal lincoln turned his armies loose on civilians.




The war was fought over unfair tariffs and taxes.
Read some history.

You must have been schooled in the South, your knowledge of history is that bad. The Industrial Revolution wasn't "beginning", it had been going on for about 70 + years. In fact, an invention of the Industrial Revolution, the cotton gin, made slavery WORSE in the South as did the Industrial Revolution in the North make the demand for slave labor cotton worse. You really have bought that "Lost Cause" crap hook, line and sinker...haven't you?

 

[bodecea]

Sure Bubba, sure. Pretty sure however, I needed to read a few history books when I got my minor in history..

You should ask for your money back, "professor"...you were badly cheated.

What was your major? "african studies" or "evil white colonialist racist studies"

Dead giveaways right there......

 

[bendog]

Art 1 Sec. 5 Clause 1 provides Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

When the Southern States seceded, their senators and reps literally packed up and went home. All of the representatives terms had expired. Senators at that time were elected by state legislatures. At least a third, and actually more since some elected in 1860 chose not to serve, could not be legally seated.

Further Clause 2 provides Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

So, I don't see any reason the Senate and House lacked authority to determine when it would seat senators and representatives from the Southern states, even though according to Yankee reasoning the southern states never actually left the Union because it was illegal to do so. And, there were supreme court cases supporting that version of history.

At any rate, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and the radical republicans all realized there had to be a process or reintegrating the Union and readmitting the south to congress. Various southern states refused to abolish slavery. That was not so much a problem for Johnson, but for Lincoln it was, and it really was for the radical republicans.

The Reconstruction Acts provided that congressional delegations wouldn't be seated the 13th and later 14th were ratified. The congress had power to do that.

Sec. 8 and the Insurrection Act of 1808 gave congress the power to put down insurrections. If the Southern states persisted in electing state govts that refused to accept the Emancipation Proclamation, and continue the insurrection by defying the law, the congress had the power to create the five military districts that governed the South through Reconstruction and until they ratified the civil war amendments.

The blackmail argument is bullshit. The Southern states never had rights to seat pro-slavery politicians after the Emancipation.