Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[paddymurphy]

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.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

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...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

You fail to recognize that he was speaking. This is not a written argument. And, clearly, he is referring to Foreigners and aliens as one in the same and they are the "who" who are ambassadors.

 

[paperview]

I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.

Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.

Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.

No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.

Jesus Christ.

Some people really are this stooopid.

No, it does NOT mean that. You're not "subject to the authority" if you're born in Guatemala to two American citizen parents. Does that mean you're NOT a citizen? Does it mean American citizens are ONLY citizens when they are within the borders of the US?

Yes... SOME people really ARE this stooopid!

Black’s Law Dictionary : Jurisdiction” “[a] government’s general power to exercise authority.”

Again, there are different contextual definitions. I'll ask you again... If I am born on an airplane flying in international air space to two American citizens, am I NOT an American citizen? Does the 14th NOT apply to me? What if my American parents are visiting Japan, which is clearly NOT within the US government's general power to exercise authority... am I NOT a citizen?

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not a geographical reference. It is talking about political allegiance and every person who debated the language of the 14th acknowledged this.

All you're producing are doughy pantloads.

My IQ is dropping with each post I read from you.

Man alive.

 

[paddymurphy]

I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.

Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.

Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.

No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.

Jesus Christ.

Some people really are this stooopid.

No, it does NOT mean that. You're not "subject to the authority" if you're born in Guatemala to two American citizen parents. Does that mean you're NOT a citizen? Does it mean American citizens are ONLY citizens when they are within the borders of the US?

Yes... SOME people really ARE this stooopid!

Black’s Law Dictionary : Jurisdiction” “[a] government’s general power to exercise authority.”

Again, there are different contextual definitions. I'll ask you again... If I am born on an airplane flying in international air space to two American citizens, am I NOT an American citizen? Does the 14th NOT apply to me? What if my American parents are visiting Japan, which is clearly NOT within the US government's general power to exercise authority... am I NOT a citizen?

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not a geographical reference. It is talking about political allegiance and every person who debated the language of the 14th acknowledged this.

The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to you. You are not "born" in the United States. You are, however, a citizen because you were born to two American citizens.

 

[Boss]

Citizenship to person born outside the United States to American citizens is not addressed in the Constitution; it is addressed by statute. Citizenship of persons born in the United States is addressed, rather clearly, by the 14th Amendment.

Sorry but your definition of the 14th would mean that anyone not born on US soil is NOT an American citizen. You see, you've made "subject to jurisdiction" into something that wasn't intended and in doing so, you've established a law that you cannot be a citizen unless born in the geographical jurisdiction of the US (on our soil).

And for the fucking record... ALL matters of naturalization are statutory. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 makes this very clear. Congress has plenary power to establish who can or can't be a citizen of the US... PERIOD!

 

[Andylusion]

Trump is one of two things,

a. genuinely an idiot

b. or in a zone where he doesn't think there's anything he can say that will damage him.

...or maybe both...

It is amazing what he gets away with and republicans tremble in fear

Getting away with? Did he murder some girl in a lake, and not report it? Was he a member of the KKK, and was in the Senate for decades? Did he lie under oath, and obstruct justice, witness tamper, collect money from impoverished buddhist monks, shake down businesses from the white house for money, rape a campaign volunteer, sell pardons for money and votes, setup a home email server, accidentally 'misplace' billing records, or sell high end missile technology to the Chinese?

Do tell..... please enlighten us.... what is he getting away with that has us shaking in fear.

Every time you scum suckers talk, I become more convinced I'm voting for Trump.

 

[Boss]

All you're producing are doughy pantloads.
My IQ is dropping with each post I read from you.
Man alive.

Translation: You're making arguments I can't refute so I am going to whine like a baby about it!

 

[paddymurphy]

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?

I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.

Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.

Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.

You posted this, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography." And yet, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark held just the opposite: "It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Let me explain. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means the same thing as within the jurisdiction. Get it? If you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, you are born subject to that jurisdiction.

No you're not because you've already said that diplomats aren't. Neither were Native Americans at that time. It took an act of Congress to grant them citizenship. Although they were born on tribal reservations, the reservations reside "within the jurisdiction" geographically.

And nope... "subject to" does NOT mean "within" in ANY dictionary I am familiar with.

The reservations were clearly not within the jurisdiction of the United States. Your claim to have read Wong Kim Ark is clearly a lie. The Court addressed this explicitly: "That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;that, by the Constitution, as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce not only "with foreign nations" and among the several States, but "with the Indian tribes;" that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and therefore that

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."
You really should stop claiming to have read the case when you did not.

 

[paddymurphy]

All you're producing are doughy pantloads.
My IQ is dropping with each post I read from you.
Man alive.

Translation: You're making arguments I can't refute so I am going to whine like a baby about it!

Every argument you have made has been refuted. Many of them in the very Supreme Court case you falsely claim to have read.

 

[Boss]

The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to you. You are not "born" in the United States. You are, however, a citizen because you were born to two American citizens.

Ahh... So in your estimation, I am a citizen without 14th Amendment Constitutional rights?

 

[Boss]

The reservations were clearly not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

They were CLEARLY in the geographical jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Boss]

All you're producing are doughy pantloads.
My IQ is dropping with each post I read from you.
Man alive.

Translation: You're making arguments I can't refute so I am going to whine like a baby about it!

Every argument you have made has been refuted. Many of them in the very Supreme Court case you falsely claim to have read.

No... nothing has been refuted.
You've presented opinions... that doesn't "refute" a goddamn thing, moron.

 

[Boss]

Your claim to have read Wong Kim Ark is clearly a lie.

Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. The court found they met the jurisdiction requirement. Not because of geography (which was obvious) but because of political allegiance.

 

[Boss]

The Court addressed this explicitly: "That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance...

This is EXACTLY what my argument has been.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Dude, you shouldn't place a lot of stock in what some libtard journalist says about anything.

Trump was talking about passing a law to restrict Birthright citizenship to legal parents, and disallowing illegal parents.

The idiot journo is deliberately twisting Trumps words in a fractured discussion about his immigration reform. The law passed would have to be tested in court, and he is well aware that the 14th amendment cant be tested. The current libtard interpretation will be tested with a new law, but that's about it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your claim to have read Wong Kim Ark is clearly a lie.

Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. The court found they met the jurisdiction requirement. Not because of geography (which was obvious) but because of political allegiance.

Wong Kim Ark recognized the right of legal parents to give birth to citizens not for illegals. No SCOTUS decision has given birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, as that is simply a legal convention and nothing more.

 

[paddymurphy]

The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to you. You are not "born" in the United States. You are, however, a citizen because you were born to two American citizens.

Ahh... So in your estimation, I am a citizen without 14th Amendment Constitutional rights?

The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to you. You are not "born" in the United States. You are, however, a citizen because you were born to two American citizens.

Ahh... So in your estimation, I am a citizen without 14th Amendment Constitutional rights?

I was referring to the portion of the 14th Amendment we have been discussing; you know, the one that states that any person born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Dude, you shouldn't place a lot of stock in what some libtard journalist says about anything.

Trump was talking about passing a law to restrict Birthright citizenship to legal parents, and disallowing illegal parents.

The idiot journo is deliberately twisting Trumps words in a fractured discussion about his immigration reform. The law passed would have to be tested in court, and he is well aware that the 14th amendment cant be tested. The current libtard interpretation will be tested with a new law, but that's about it.

You cannot pass a law that trumps the Constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

All you're producing are doughy pantloads.
My IQ is dropping with each post I read from you.
Man alive.

Translation: You're making arguments I can't refute so I am going to whine like a baby about it!

Every argument you have made has been refuted. Many of them in the very Supreme Court case you falsely claim to have read.

No... nothing has been refuted.
You've presented opinions... that doesn't "refute" a goddamn thing, moron.

The Opinion I presented was Wong Kim Ark. So, since you claim it said one thing and I proved it said just the opposite, that pretty much refutes you.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

Dude, you shouldn't place a lot of stock in what some libtard journalist says about anything.

Trump was talking about passing a law to restrict Birthright citizenship to legal parents, and disallowing illegal parents.

The idiot journo is deliberately twisting Trumps words in a fractured discussion about his immigration reform. The law passed would have to be tested in court, and he is well aware that the 14th amendment cant be tested. The current libtard interpretation will be tested with a new law, but that's about it.

You cannot pass a law that trumps the Constitution.

"trumps the Constitution"? I see what you did there. Well played.

 

[paddymurphy]

Your claim to have read Wong Kim Ark is clearly a lie.

Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. The court found they met the jurisdiction requirement. Not because of geography (which was obvious) but because of political allegiance.

Wong Kim Ark recognized the right of legal parents to give birth to citizens not for illegals. No SCOTUS decision has given birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, as that is simply a legal convention and nothing more.

"No SCOTUS decision has given birthright citizenship to illegal aliens" Except, of course for the two that recognized that Wong Kim Ark did just that.