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

Actually he stated the family of foreign, alien ambassadors were exempt.

 

He also said foreigners and aliens as well

 

This is where things get messed up. Seems most do not understand natural law. It means this is so with no action from government or man. If you are born in a country where both your parents are citizens of that country then NATURALLY you are a citizen of that country. There is no doubt no law has to be passed to make it so. Now if one of your parents is not born there then there is a question so a law must be passed to clarify it. The founders well understood natural law and based the DOI and constitution on it. Seems the one thing they did not for see is we would forget natural law

 

Nope. Just the families of foreign, alien ambassadors.

I see you still have trouble with basic grade school grammar

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such thing as natural law. All laws are man made.

 

Good points. The Supreme Court has a far more powerful role that that envisioned by the Framers or by the Ratifying Conventions. Congress has a number of tools to check the Court and they need to put them to work.

 

That is absurd. I'm a proponent of natural law and what you describe is not it.

Saying that natural law makes anyone a citizen of a country makes no sense whatsoever. Natural law exists independently of any government, "citizens" and "countries" do not, at least not in the sense that you are using them.

 

As do the other branches of government. They take as much power as the ignorant masses will allow and the masses have allowed/demanded plenty. Everybody loves the Constitution...until it gets in their way and then they're willing to sidestep/finagle/ignore/mutilate it in a New York minute.

In this instance, they have one tool, a Constitutional Amendment.

 

They have more than that. They can also limit Judicial review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Laws_limiting_judicial_review

Not that anyone in leadership has shown any interest in jostling the apple cart. So for Birthright citizenship, they only need to pass a law clarifying that is for children of Citizens and include language limiting Judicial Review. If the Court oversteps that, Congress has further tools to check the court.

 

Without government or man, there is no such thing as a country or citizenship. To suggest that there is some kind of "natural law" regarding citizenship is just plain ignorant.

 

If there is such a thing as a country then naturally anyone who is born there of a mother and father who are citizens then they naturally would also be citizens. Natural law means once more it takes no act of man to make it so. Yes it takes an act of man to form a state and declare that people are citizens of it but that does not change the fact that those born there of parents who are citizens naturally are also citizens. This is Natural Law not man made

 

Without man we wouldnt be here. The point is that such a thing is so obvious as to be natural. There is no doubt as to the citizenship if both paents are citizens of the country the child is born in. The nation does not have to make a law to make this child is a citizen.

 

as long as the parents to not hold allegiance to any foreign sovereignty... then are natural born citizens

all laws and court decisions set precedents for future decisions and laws

now there is a process that must be taken to change the constitution if this is no longer what the people want.....

I think it is being abused, but it is what it is until it's changed



.

 

No all they need is the proper interpretation

- - - Updated - - -

If they were not born here then they hold allegiance to their native country

Precedents are lawyers ways of corrupting laws to their liking

 

maybe they are fleeing their country and hold no such allegiance

now if there is proof such as they admit it or are flying the Mexican flag.... then the constitution would not apply to their children

.

 

In such a case congress can give them refugee status. Once more its up to congress to make immigration and naturalization laws. These illegals do not claim refugee status nor have they been given it.

 

congress doesn't have to give permission, they just have to not have an allegiance to their former country

 

But they do. The parents need to renounce theirs and be naturalized then their child is a citizen. The child can not renounce its citizenship at birth. Using your logic anyone can say they have no allegiance other than to the US so everyone who gets here is a citizen. Congress makes the naturalization and citizenship laws.

 

Sorry, but that's what it says. It's why you lied earlier and got caught inserting an OR in there.

 

All laws are man made. There is no such thing as natural law.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is irrelevant. New born babies don't have any allegiance.

It's called case law

- - - Updated - - -

which is irrelevant. Simple presence inside US borders places anyone under U.S. Jurisdiction. Any child born under such jurisdiction is a U.S. Citizen. Only way to change this is a new amendment repealing the 14th.

 

Most are ignoring a crucial qualifier in the the 14th amendment it is "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty"

does those that are ignoring that qualifier even know what that means?
It means not being a citizen of another country
now you will say everyone is a citizen of a country they was born in which isn't true. slaves which the 14th amendment was written with newly freed slaves in mind where not citizens of any country
so using that qualifier parents from other countries countries which they have citizenship in owe an allegiance to their country they came from there for the children they have in the US are not aromatically American citizens

 

And where does it say any such thing in the 14th amendment?

This is settled law. All that is required to be under US jurisdiction is physical presence inside the borders.

Wong Kim Ark and plyler v doe.

 

The words ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall….”

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 

And it's meaning is settled law. WKA and plyler clearly define it. Physical presence is the determining factor.

 

No matter how many times you repeat this lie it does not make it so. Read the link it even shows why your wrong