Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

American Thinker ^ | August 30, 2010 | J.R. Dunn

[Berlin_Freeper]

Being shipped back to Mexico builds character.

[Tennessee Nana]

PING

[pabianice]

End of Argument

[Carry_Okie]

Lazy effort. He clearly didn't read Chief Justice Fuller's minority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. It is heavily excerpted, along with discussion of the proper context of the Slaughterhouse Cases here.

[Will88]

The question, of course, involves anchor babies (AKA "jackpot babies"), infants born to illegal immigrants in the certainty that, under the "natural-born citizenship" clause of the 14th.

It might be just as accurate to call them "extortion" babies, because if a non-citizen breaks our laws and enters the US illegally, for the purpose of having a child on US soil, then our present nonsensical laws allow the parents to legally extort money from the US Treasury and rights of citizenship from all levels of government on and on.

That is the real intent, to have the baby on US soil so they can legally extort or extract benefits on and on.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Good post!

[Non-Sequitur]

He clearly didn't read Chief Justice Fuller's minority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. It is heavily excerpted, along with discussion of the proper context of the Slaughterhouse Cases.

You are aware, are you not, that dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent or become part of case law?

[onyx]

FROM CONGRESSMAN BILLYBOB;

post #11

Like many Members of Congress, McConnell is fuzzy on the Constitution. The last clause of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to enforce it, by “appropriate legislation.” The first paragraph refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

There is NO NEED to amend the Constitution. Congress only has to pass appropriate legislation to make the problem of anchor babies disappear. All it takes is reading the Constitution, a task that some Congressmen and many reporters are unable to do.

John / Billybob

- - - - - - -

Krauthammer: Dead Wrong on the 14th

Special to FreeRepublic| 5 August 2010 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Carry_Okie]

You are aware, are you not, that dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent or become part of case law?

Oh please, you can't be serious asking me that. OK, here's your "duh" caveat: The purpose of dissenting opinions is to facilitate possible future reversal by pointing out the flaws in the majority opinion.

Happy now?

Fuller's dissenting opinion on Wong Kim Ark is a thing of beauty, a truly worthy read on some of the key principles of liberty under law. If one is looking for reasons to dispute current policy, isn't that good enough reason to consult it?

[Liberty Valance]

bump to the top!

[onyx]

I urge everyone to read our late Congressman BillyBob's explanation of the 14th Amendment which I've linked above.

[onyx]

Thank you!
BTTT

[tbw2]

Is that picture from Saturday night live?

[Carry_Okie]

Congressman Billybob was wrong about the 14th in the following respect: It actually forbids anchor babies because the 14th only applies to those "subject to the jurisdiction," not those merely within the jurisdiction. Hence, because the Constitution is a limiting document, Congress has no power to confer citizenship on those within, but not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Any alien, resident or illegal, is within, but not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All you have to do is read a law dictionary contemporary to the time the Amendment was drafted to see how those who wrote and ratified it understood the word "subject."

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[GeorgeTex]

That is former United States Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney from Georgia who was asked to show her ID badge because she came to work one day looking like that.

[onyx]

So, in your view, is there a need to amend the Constitution, given Brennan’s mendacious footnote??

[itsahoot]

our late Congressman BillyBob's

Has BillyBob died?

[itsahoot]

It actually forbids anchor babies because the 14th only applies to those "subject to the jurisdiction,"

And yet all the king's horses, and all the king's men, can't make heads nor tails of plain English, maybe they should press 2 for Spanish version.