Ok Constitutionalists: What Is The 'Original Intent' Of The 14Th Amendment?

There is no Law of Nature.

 

That you don't understand them is quite clear.

But our Founding fathers obviously did, or they would not have used the term.

 

What I see is you obviously skirting the real fact that they do indeed recognize three conditions of Citizenship, and that you deny that the three exist and only recognize two yourself.

You don't mind if I take the written word from The Government Website that enforces the LAW over your tripe, do you?

By the way, I was a Localization Producer for a well known Game Company and have had a Passport for almost two decades. But I also understand that my Passport is not used to see if I am eligible to be President of the U.S.

Something you obviously don't understand.

 

Mitt's parents have alliance with the U.S. because they are citizens. Two illegal immigrants cannot produce a U.S. citizen. It's illegal for them to be here in the first place. Even if we gave illegal immigrants all of the rights of natural citizens, they'd be deported for breaking the law because it is foreign policy that illegal immigrants are not dealt with in the U.S., but rather in Mexico.

~ Amendment 14 Section 1
Underline added.

 

Your entire post is false. A child of two illegal parents born on US soil is a natural born citizen. Learn some facts ok?

 

Two illegal CAN produce a U.S. citizen but it's illegal for them to be here in the first place. Sorry for the typo, however, even if there was no mistake, how would it disprove the rest of the post?

It's all right.

 

Yes its illegal for them to be here but the child is a natural born citizen.

 

Is that it? What about the rest of the "false" post?

 

Of course. You cannot pretend today that it means something other than it did then, and confirm on this novel imputed meaning the ratification of 3/4ths of the States.

 

Only with the consent of Congress. Legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians proves that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[/quote]
http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution

 

Not according to the author of the amendment who clearly stated that the intent had nothing to do with aliens of any sort including ambassadors or any others. So according to the amendment if at least one of your parents isn't a citizen neither are you regardless of where you are born.

 

There were no freemen after the war. The war made slaves of all peoples.

 

There is nothing in the 14th amendment that mandates this, and it is certainly with the expressed power of Congress to re-express the framers of the 14th amendment of the distinction between complete, political jurisdiction; and partial, territorial jurisdiction.

Certainly when the Supreme Court addressed the Citizenship Clause in the Slaughterhouse Cases, both the majority and dissenting opinions recognized that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “the phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

In Elk v. Wilkins SCOTUS held in that a Native American born on a tribal reservation, within the US was not a citizen because he was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. Elk did not meet the jurisdictional test because, as a member of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States.

Certainly illegal aliens meet this same test as they are foreign nationals. There seems to be quite a movement in this nation by some to very much dilute if not do away the incredible privilege and distinction we have as citizens and to work to cheapen it at every opportunity.

The Court then continued in Elk by drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act from which the 14th Amendment was drawn: “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.” Demonstrating that is in fact proper and reasonable to use the 1866 Civil Rights act to interpret the 14th Amendment of our great constitution.

 

It certainly does not. Now Congress could pass legislation using that understanding but they are certainly not compelled by the fourteenth to do so, and the framers of the fourteenth certainly did not use your understanding, in fact they argued against it.

The Supreme Court has never held that the children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in this country illegally are citizens. In the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, the Court simply held that a child born of Chinese immigrants who were lawfully and permanently in the United States — “domiciled” here, to use the Court’s phrase — was a citizen. There is language that is nothing more than pure dicta, and mistaken in the opinion of many, but this was not a finding of the court because there was no claim at issue in the case other than whether the child of lawful, permanent residents was a citizen.

 

You're really trying to hold to the original intent of the 14th Amendment? Why bother? Haven't you noticed that the SC's liberal justices read whatever interpretation they want into the 14th Amendment in order to advance the ideas at the top of their agenda?

 

If you read the debates and what the senator who wrote the amendment say is that under the jurisdiction there of mean under the sole and complete jurisdiction there of . He also stated that the children of aliens and foreigners were exempt. The original intent was to overturn Dread Scott and make slaves and their children born here citizens

 

All I know is that righties are strict constructionists - until they ain't.

 

Exactly!!!

Many are just extremist-hypocrites!!

 

I feel that both parent's not just one should have to be legal United States citizens, to have a child able to run for president.

 

Because Congress needs to pass clarifying legislation and they are using this recent misapplication of the fourteenth as an opt out of their responsibility to do so.

 

I am a little confused by the original intent argument

If i remember correctly, only the explicit words of the aca were considered relevant.... And intent of the law was dismissed

Now, the same people are arguing that plain language of the law is not relevant and only original intent is to be considered?.???

 

Who can blame them? Whatever laws they pass will simply be struck down as unconstitutional by a SCOTUS that is drunk with power.

 

That is as good of an excuse as any for them to wimp out. They control the purse, we are heavily in debt, yet they have this endless list of why endless failure is justified.

They can pass clarification and in it include language stripping federal courts, including SCOTUS of the power to review it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

 

Psssst, a Baby does not hold allegiance to any country at birth, hence the Anchor Baby thought is BOGUS. The founders knew many people wanted to come here and were at the time, hence they covered the Citizenship status of those born in this Nation and that will not be changing no matter how much some want to do so. Welcome to Reality.

- - - Updated - - -

One can Feel anything they want, just so they realize that their feelings will not change the LAW.