Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Rotagilla]

We = liberals, northerners, winners, the moral ones, not disloyal assholes who got their asses kicked and still cry like fucking babies about it to this very day...

disloyal?...no they were patriots and tried to leave the union peacefully and offered to pay for any fed. property in the south.

but lincoln had to have his war so he invaded the south. It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you get to beat her to make her stay...

Were the colonists in 1776 "patriots" fighting for independence from an oppressive gvt?...... or do you consider them "traitors"?

Remember;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

and the lying POS lincoln's own words;

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
Jan 12, 1848

 

[Rotagilla]

Looks official to me <sarcasm>.

You are going to believe what you want. Like all libtards. As ANYONE should know amendments to the constitution must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. that never happened

The states were quite a bit smaller then as we were still trying to figure out what to do with the defeated asswipes of the South, who had no say in that matter or any other since they surrendered...

"We"?...silly, effiminate beta male...you didn't do anything.

We = liberals, northerners, winners, the moral ones, not disloyal assholes who got their asses kicked and still cry like fucking babies about it to this very day...

^ retard still doesn't comprehend you can't be loyal to a nation you aren't a citizen of,also doesn't realize even yankees commented on CSA armies being best fighting men ever. Just ignore this fool. Most do.

I know...He's just another agitator taking out his frustrations with his life by being obnoxious and inflammatory on a message board.
they're comical, actually...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We = liberals, northerners, winners, the moral ones, not disloyal assholes who got their asses kicked and still cry like fucking babies about it to this very day...

disloyal?...no they were patriots and tried to leave the union peacefully and offered to pay for any fed. property in the south.

but lincoln had to have his war so he invaded the south. It's like if your wife asks for a divorce you get to beat her to make her stay...

Were the colonists in 1776 "patriots" fighting for independence from an oppressive gvt?...... or do you consider them "traitors"?

Remember;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

and the lying POS lincoln's own words;

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
Jan 12, 1848

The Founders were disloyal, smart, and right. The South was disloyal, racist, and wrong. They haven't changed yet...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are going to believe what you want. Like all libtards. As ANYONE should know amendments to the constitution must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. that never happened

The states were quite a bit smaller then as we were still trying to figure out what to do with the defeated asswipes of the South, who had no say in that matter or any other since they surrendered...

"We"?...silly, effiminate beta male...you didn't do anything.

We = liberals, northerners, winners, the moral ones, not disloyal assholes who got their asses kicked and still cry like fucking babies about it to this very day...

^ retard still doesn't comprehend you can't be loyal to a nation you aren't a citizen of,also doesn't realize even yankees commented on CSA armies being best fighting men ever. Just ignore this fool. Most do.

I know...He's just another agitator taking out his frustrations with his life by being obnoxious and inflammatory on a message board.
they're comical, actually...

Actually I'm calling bullshit bullshit. Since you live your lives based upon lies, you are not my biggest fans.

 

[candycorn]

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject and how they defined jurisdiction.

And you might want to read what the Supreme Court has to say, since they are the only ones who matter...

for now...

Oooh a threat from the little man. What you gonna do about it?

 

[Rotagilla]

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject and how they defined jurisdiction.

And you might want to read what the Supreme Court has to say, since they are the only ones who matter...

for now...

Oooh a threat from the little man. What you gonna do about it?

things change all the time.....and try to get over your melodramatic self.

 

[my2¢]

According to a July 2011 report by Jon Feere ( Birthright Citizenship for Children of Foreign Diplomats? )
"The Social Security Administration (SSA) does not investigate whether SSN requests are for children of foreign diplomats. Although the agency does recognize that U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not eligible to receive SSNs, there is no mechanism in place for preventing such issuance."
"Children of diplomats who receive U.S. birth certificates and SSNs have greater rights and protections than the average U.S. citizen because they can enjoy all of the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but also invoke diplomatic immunity if they break a law. A lack of direction from Congress has created what one might consider a 'super citizen' who is above the law."

However, my understanding has always been children of diplomats were not citizens ( U.S. Citizenship Through Parents or by Birth - FindLaw ).
"In most situations, any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories will automatically receive American citizenship. However, children born to diplomats and other recognized government officials from foreign countries will not receive U.S. citizenship if born on American soil."

Regardless of one's belief in handling illegal immigrants, congress should act and clear up this issue.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump was on Bill O'Reilly's show recently.

O'Reilly misquoted the 14th amendment, leaving out a significant part of it relevant to this issue, and insisted that it said simply that anybody born in the United States is a citizen, period. Knowing that wasn't so, Trump said that what O'Reilly had said "was unconstitutional". And the author of the article below, ignored the rest of the amendment's statement, and jumped to the conclusion that Trump was referring to the 14th amendment itself as "unconstitutional".

Here's the relevant part of the 14th amendment. I bolded the part O'Reilly and the author left out:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Illegal aliens' kids born on this side of the border, aren't subject to the United States' jurisdiction, since their parents are here illegally. So they are not U.S. citizens, according to the Constitution.

If the Swedish ambassador and his wife go to a hospital in Washington and have a baby, that baby IS a U.S. citizen (and might be a dual citizen, US and Sweden), since their parents were here legally. Ditto for the ambassador from Kenya or England or Mexico or Russia.

Trump didn't say the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. He never mentioned the 14th amendment at all. He said O'Reilly's interpretation of it was unconstitutional. In fact, Trump is right: O'Reilly's interpretation doesn't agree with what the Constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) actually says.

But the author, and O'Reilly, ignored this in yelling about a supposed goof by Trump... when in fact they were the ones making the mistake.

----------------------------------------------------

Donald Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

"Donald Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional"

Dylan Stableford
‎August‎ ‎19‎, ‎2015

Donald Trump is defending his controversial immigration plan, telling Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly that the 14th Amendment — which guarantees citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” including children whose parents came to the country illegally — is unconstitutional.

“It’s not going to hold up in court,” Trump said on The Factor Tuesday.

On Sunday, the Republican frontrunner released his formal plan for immigration reform, calling for a wall across the southern border to be paid for by Mexico, the defunding of so-called sanctuary cities and the “mandatory return of all criminal aliens” to their home countries — including so-called birthright citizens protected by the 14th Amendment.

“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,“ Trump said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

You got this part wrong.

If the Swedish ambassador and his wife go to a hospital in Washington and have a baby, that baby IS a U.S. citizen (and might be a dual citizen, US and Sweden), since their parents were here legally. Ditto for the ambassador from Kenya or England or Mexico or Russia.

US law specifically withholds citizenship from the children of diplomats and the same could be done for illegals. If you read the words of the people who wrote the 14th, they specifically said it did not apply to foreigners, aliens or diplomats. They defined "jurisdiction" as applying to persons whos total allegiance was to the US and not a foreign state.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Yep, I know so many republicans....and none of them tremble at anything except the idea that their kids might grow up to be as stupid as you.

 

[Dad2three]

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

NEVER thought we'd agree. Who knew we'd have someone who is a bigger loon than Failin Palin to laugh at in the GOP Klown Kar?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th Amendment isn't going to be 'repealed.'

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment will remain part of the Constitution and law of the land.

A president has no authority to 'repeal' an Amendment, eliminate a provision of an Amendment, or change the case law predicated on an Amendment – these facts serve to illustrate Trump's ignorance and idiocy, and the ignorance and idiocy of those who agree with him.

 

[Dad2three]

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

HE stated you weren't automatically US citizens, NOT that he just wanted to amend it!

 

[Dad2three]

It all depends on how the court defines a word. And that word is
ju·ris·dic·tion
ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
     "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
     synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway,leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
     "an area under French jurisdiction"
     • the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
       "the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
     • a system of law courts; a judicature.
       plural noun: jurisdictions
       "in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
   • So now is it the land you are standing on OR the country you are sworn to?

SCOTUS has said you're are wrong

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.


United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DarkFury]

It all depends on how the court defines a word. And that word is
ju·ris·dic·tion
ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
     "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
     synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway,leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
     "an area under French jurisdiction"
     • the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
       "the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
     • a system of law courts; a judicature.
       plural noun: jurisdictions
       "in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
   • So now is it the land you are standing on OR the country you are sworn to?

SCOTUS has said you're are wrong

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.


United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are going to FORCE THAT CHILD TO BE american AGAINST Mexican law?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

HE said it wouldn't hold up in court, despite



United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli).
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

It all depends on how the court defines a word. And that word is
ju·ris·dic·tion
ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
     "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
     synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway,leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
     "an area under French jurisdiction"
     • the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
       "the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
     • a system of law courts; a judicature.
       plural noun: jurisdictions
       "in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
   • So now is it the land you are standing on OR the country you are sworn to?

SCOTUS has said you're are wrong

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.


United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are going to FORCE THAT CHILD TO BE american AGAINST Mexican law?

lol


If you, or one of your parents, were born in Mexico, you are eligible for becoming a Mexican national without affecting your status as a U.S. citizen.

How to obtain dual citizenship - U.S. and Mexico

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

'These times' are no more or less 'uncertain' than any other period in American history.

It is certain that the Constitution will not be 'amended' to 'repeal' the 14th Amendment.

And should the Constitution be amended in the future, the intent of any new amendment will be to acknowledge and codify the rights of all persons in the United States, not jeopardize inalienable rights as Trump and his supporters seek to do.

 

[OKTexas]

The 14th Amendment isn't going to be 'repealed.'

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment will remain part of the Constitution and law of the land.

A president has no authority to 'repeal' an Amendment, eliminate a provision of an Amendment, or change the case law predicated on an Amendment – these facts serve to illustrate Trump's ignorance and idiocy, and the ignorance and idiocy of those who agree with him.

But they can request that the issue be revisited. The next president will likely be nominating 3-4 justices.

 

[JQPublic1]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Looks official to me <sarcasm>.

You are going to believe what you want. Like all libtards. As ANYONE should know amendments to the constitution must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. that never happened

The states were quite a bit smaller then as we were still trying to figure out what to do with the defeated asswipes of the South, who had no say in that matter or any other since they surrendered...

Yawn. Wrong as usual OH and not only did the no southern state ratify it 6 other yankee states did not either.

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Looks official to me <sarcasm>.

You are going to believe what you want. Like all libtards. As ANYONE should know amendments to the constitution must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. that never happened

The constitution is on my side in this (and all) matters. Good luck with Trump as your new idol.

Really? when did the constitution change to not needing 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment? I missed that one

Just curious. In 1867 there were 37 states. Ten Southern States rejected the initial ratification of the 14th Amendment but they were not yet re assimilated back into the Union. Right? That means, in reality, the Union consisted of only 27 States. 3/4th of that comes out to around 20.25...round it down to 20 state needed to ratify.
Subtracting the 6 Union States that did not ratify from 27 and we have 21 states that ratified. 1 more than enough to make the ratification of the amendment legal.

THE SOUTH DID RATIFY THE 14th Amendment, under coercion but it was done.


IMHO,the defeated confederacy should have had no part in ratifying the 14th Amendment. I am not alone in that summation. The victorious Union Republican congress placed an important condition on the 10 Southern state hold outs: they could not regain congressional representation without ratifying the 14th Amendment.