Skip to comments.What "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" Really Means
Posted on 11/26/2008 10:41:16 PM PST by unspun
click here to read article
That temptation is strong. We have a better court now, than then. I think it’s time to boost public awareness.
Thank you for your response, calenel. Looks like I’m getting back into FR gradually today/tomorrow, after directing attention elsewhere.
>>We have a better court now, than then.<<
True, at least for now, but we have a better court now than 1973, but unfortunately I don’t ecpect Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, etc. etc. to be overturned.
>>I think its time to boost public awareness.<<
Nothing wrong with that.
The past election set that back for a generation or more. Even if McCain isn't conservative on a lot of things, his opposition to abortion should have gotten people off their behinds. I guess they don't care as much as they claim to, since they wouldn't get out and vote against the baby-killer Obama. Because McCain isn't 'conservative enough'. How's that working out for them? Over a million killed each year for who knows how many more years.
The 14th Amendment had the goal of insuring that freed slaves and other blacks were given full citizenship - in the north as well as the south. It also explicitly eliminated the 3/5 ratio by which 'other persons' were counted for purposes of allocating representatives - just in case there was some confusion as to the meaning of 'free persons'. If that ratio was still in effect the 'population' of Georgia, for example, would be more than 1 million fewer for purposes of allocating House seats (and consequently the Electoral College) resulting in a loss of one or two seats/votes. They would go to states with relatively low black populations.
>>I guess they don’t care as much as they claim to, since they wouldn’t get out and vote against the baby-killer Obama. Because McCain isn’t ‘conservative enough’. How’s that working out for them? Over a million killed each year for who knows how many more years.<<
We will never know what kind of justices McCain would have been able to get through confirmation. My guess is that if he had actually nominated a real conservative, he would have been voted down in the senate, and then he would have sent someone more “acceptable.” Dems have plenty of confirmation votes.
If McCain’s amnesty had passed, that would have guaranteed Dem (or worse) control of all 3 branches for a long time. I voted for McC/Palin in the hope that McCain would not do too much damage before Palin took over.
I hear ya! I was prepared to hold my nose and pull the lever for McCain before he tapped Palin, since the alternatives were much, much worse. He wasn't my first choice. Wait, let me be perfectly clear: he wasn't even close to my first choice. Palin made that so much less painful. I tell you, the 'all or nothing crowd' is going to take us all down with them. And they will still get their 'nothing'. A 'principled' vote for Barr or Keyes or whoever, or sitting this one out, was effectively a vote for Obama. You know what I hear from those people when I ask them why they don't run if there aren't any 'conservative enough' candidates? I hear [crickets].
>>I tell you, the ‘all or nothing crowd’ is going to take us all down with them.<<
I have a great respect for many of the “all or nothing crowd,” and if the GOP nominates another character like McCain, I can’t promise I will vote for him/her. But I will always vote for good congress people.
If there aren’t any ‘conservative enough’ candidates, why not you?
>>If there arent any conservative enough candidates, why not you?<<
Please. I am not going to be elected POTUS. I have been active in the local R party, but even there it’s difficult to make any impact when someone like McCain is the “leader.”
I didn’t say there weren’t any, we don’t know who will run in 2012. I vote for good congress people. I just said I can’t promise to vote for another McCain for POTUS.
I believe that Donofrio relates that this Act specifically removes "natural" or "natural born" from its confering of citizenship upon the bases it declares -- and that it never returns to any conferring of citiznship that is weaker than the Article 2 presidential standard.
Sarah Palin started out as a PTA Hockey Mom. Now she's a front-runner for POTUS in 2012. Start small. Get involved. Talk to your party organizer and Tell them you are going to run against the local Rat or RINO. I don't know you, of course, and your skeletons may be spilling out of the closet, but, hey, we all have things in our past that we would rather not have made public (a few do-overs would be nice, too). If you can't stand national scrutiny then try state rep or selectman or what ever.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
That may be. I read about half of that and the glaring, obvious thing to me is that "anchor babies" are a delusion. No way you can read that and conclude that if a Mexican girl drags here butt here and drops a baby in a hospital that she will never pay the bill for that the baby is a citizen and she is entitled to welfare.
I learned something from that, thanks.
What a terrible dodge that is to reach a predetermined outcome.
That is a tyranny that must end.
I think this post makes a good case for that.
>>The 14th doesn’t address whether someone is a “person”. It addresses what determines if a “person” is a “citizen” of the USA.
What a terrible dodge that is to reach a predetermined outcome.<<
I agree. Unfortunately, we had a different SCOTUS then, and they are reluctant to overturn prior SC rulings, even the craziest ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.