Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

 

[bendog]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

GTFO..the south was run by unelected U.S. military governors during "reconstruction".. got that? they were NOT elected by the PEOPLE.
C'mon, man..this stuff is basic.

EDIT;

The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

incorrect.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

the winners don't always tell the truth about everything they did, either. That's why the "history" channel and wikipedia aren't to be relied on. The real information about any war is available but you have to WANT to know the truth and you have to look hard and if you only rely on one or 2 sources..well..whatever....

 

[bendog]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

GTFO..the south was run by unelected U.S. military governors during "reconstruction".. got that? they were NOT elected by the PEOPLE.
C'mon, man..this stuff is basic.

JFC. The congress established the military districts, and it had that power because it can put down insurrections. In order to get out from under a military district, a state had to ratify amendments agreeing to "no more slaves." And all slaves in the South were already legally free do to the Emancipation Proclamation.

The congress also had the power to seat, and or expel, any senator or representative. The Congress refused to seat anyone from the South until his state ratified. It had that power.

There was nothing unconstitutional about Reconstruction or the ratification of the amendments.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried. This is a "gutcheck" post. If you try to defend Trump's statement it is proof positive you are a complete moron and abject ignoramus. I dont care what your political leanings.
Donald Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

THE ENTIRE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE THE SOUTHERN STATES WERE UNDER MARTIAL FUCKING LAW AND COMPELLED TO SIGN IT.


.

I see you have purchased your Con-federate flag crying towel.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

GTFO..the south was run by unelected U.S. military governors during "reconstruction".. got that? they were NOT elected by the PEOPLE.
C'mon, man..this stuff is basic.

EDIT;

The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

incorrect.

Gee, if the South hadn't started something they couldn't win, this would not have even been an issue. And yet misguided, mis-schooled fools like you still cry. Maybe if the Union had hung a few rebel leaders instead of coddling them, we wouldn't have people like you going on about how the poor South was just minding their own businesses until the big, bad North mugged them.

 

[Rotagilla]

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

GTFO..the south was run by unelected U.S. military governors during "reconstruction".. got that? they were NOT elected by the PEOPLE.
C'mon, man..this stuff is basic.

JFC. The congress established the military districts, and it had that power because it can put down insurrections. In order to get out from under a military district, a state had to ratify amendments agreeing to "no more slaves." And all slaves in the South were already legally free do to the Emancipation Proclamation.

The congress also had the power to seat, and or expel, any senator or representative. The Congress refused to seat anyone from the South until his state ratified. It had that power.

There was nothing unconstitutional about Reconstruction or the ratification of the amendments.

It wasn't an "insurrection"..the south tried to peacefully and legally secede...The north invaded. Patriots repel invaders.

As far as "reconstruction"..these unelected military governors were forced on the south as further punishment.
That violates ...geez...any number of "american" principles of how a republic operates..

The fact that the war criminal lincoln turned loose his armies and waged all out, scorched earth war on fellow americans who only wanted to go their own way and be left alone..murdering and raping civilians, stealing their property and later "redistributing" it, wrecking their homes, businesses and infrastructure and then afterward denying them representation in government.

lincoln was a lying pos and the mistake the south made was believeing he was honest.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln [/B][/B]


from his 1st inaugural address


Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments: and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming Administration.

Now I see all your opinions and beliefs and emotions on display but try not to overlook the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

GTFO..the south was run by unelected U.S. military governors during "reconstruction".. got that? they were NOT elected by the PEOPLE.
C'mon, man..this stuff is basic.

JFC. The congress established the military districts, and it had that power because it can put down insurrections. In order to get out from under a military district, a state had to ratify amendments agreeing to "no more slaves." And all slaves in the South were already legally free do to the Emancipation Proclamation.

The congress also had the power to seat, and or expel, any senator or representative. The Congress refused to seat anyone from the South until his state ratified. It had that power.

There was nothing unconstitutional about Reconstruction or the ratification of the amendments.

It wasn't an "insurrection"..the south tried to peacefully and legally secede...The north invaded. Patriots repel invaders..

Exactly how did the South peacefully decide to start the war by firing on American troops at Fort Sumter?

Yes the Patriotic Slave States decided to attempt to secede in order to protect their human property- and in the course of secession they fired on American troops.

Turned out bad for them- but it did lead to the end of legal slavery in the United States.

I consider that a win.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Ah ..hem...yeahhhh but the outcomes were different. I could be wrong..but...

So the difference between who are patriots and who are traitors boils down to who wins........do i have that right?

Yep...and it's always been that way.

No. The North never denied the South political representation. The issue was the South wanted as many slave states as free states.

You are trying to apply ante-bellum events to post bellum events... you can't do that. Bodecea was, in other words, simply saying: to the victor goes the spoils and it has always been that way. You are referring to something that has no connection with that statement.

 

[Boss]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

 

[Boss]

"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

I'm glad Levin weighed in on this. He is absolutely spot on as usual when it comes to the Constitution.

 

[JoeMoma]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

I actually believe that you are right. That being said, multitudes of babies of illegal immigrants have been granted birthright citizenship over the years. It's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule against the current interpretation even if challenged. It will take a constitution amendment to end future birthright citizenship for anchor babies.

 

[candycorn]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

I actually believe that you are right. That being said, multitudes of babies of illegal immigrants have been granted birthright citizenship over the years. It's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule against the current interpretation even if challenged. It will take a constitution amendment to end future birthright citizenship for anchor babies.

There is zero chance of that happening. Thanks for playing. Check please.

 

[Boss]

14th Amendment will be intact, 100% in 101 years.
Its not going to be overturned.

It doesn't have to be. That was the main point Trump was making on the subject in that interview.

If he becomes President, he simply has to announce that the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means that anchor babies are not citizens, since their parents were not citizens and the only reason they were here is that they broke our laws and deliberately came or stayed illegally. Then he could write Executive Orders to deport such non-citizens here illegally, in accordance with longstanding acts of Congress saying they are subject to deportation.

Then the open-borders hysterics would have to fight their way through the courts trying to prove that Trump's interpretation was NOT correct. It would take them years, and cost them $zillions in lawyer fees.

No need to "overturn" the 14th at all. Just interpret it in a different way than the current (incorrect) interpretation. Then the hysterics have to do all the work, trying to get it stopped. Trump is the President, able to make such interpretations, and they are not.

I almost agree but it's not Trump, it's Congress who gets to decide. In fact, pursuant to the 14th, they have done precisely that. In 1923, Native Americans born in the US, on US soil... were not considered American citizens. They were "subject to jurisdiction" of their respective tribe, so they did not meet the requirement under the 14th, and neither do aliens here illegally. So Congress passed a citizenship act for Native Americans... born in the US... born on US soil... subject to US law.

If the 14th confers birthright citizenship, this would not have been needed.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4... Congress has plenary power. It is one of their enumerated powers. So if you actually believe in Constitutional government, separation of powers and the way our nation was founded and intended to operate, you cannot believe this is a matter of any court ruling or interpretation.

 

[Boss]

I actually believe that you are right. That being said, multitudes of babies of illegal immigrants have been granted birthright citizenship over the years.

That may be so, but the question then becomes, do you deport them with the parents or remove children from their parents to be kept as wards of state? I think you can do the former easier than the latter. In any event, this is a plenary power of Congress, it is entirely their decision. There is no "birthright" citizenship unless you meet the criteria in the 14th.

 

[candycorn]

Did you read little acorns entire post...the part about it taking years to be to through the courts if Trumpet were to do that? Looks to me you missed that part. The executive gets to interpret the law a certain way until the courts say otherwise. Obama has proven that with his phone and pin.

So, what you're saying is this: That Obama, tomorrow, could decide that the 2nd Amendment means that you have to be in a militia to own firearms. He could decide that, making anyone who owns firearms and are not in a militia criminals. Then it would be up to anyone who disagrees to "stop him". And until they "stop him", his interpretation will stand as the law of the land?

Is this what you're saying?

 

[candycorn]

An amendment to the Constitution is.. Unconstitutional. I used to think Trump wouldn't be so terrible, and I say that as someone generally left leaning, but damn... The more he talks the less I like. He really had a shot once.

Just wait until he starts taking stands on issues that matter.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

You are in error!

 

[Redfish]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.