Posted on 04/24/2005 8:38:00 AM PDT by Founding Father
Congress merely ratified what had always been the law. Congress cannot create constitutional law. I presume in 1924 there was a question of sovereign indian nations claiming their members were not being accorded equal protection of the laws. In response Congress removed the issue from the prospect of the judiciary. Your example being used to prove a negative would not be persuasive to any legal authority.
Exactly! Diplomats were the reason for the wording.
Maybe the child should decide at the age of maturity?
Good post. I am a proponent of increased legal immigration. However, I think the automatic granting of citizenship is absolutely one of the stupidest abuses of the Constitution (among many).
Take the case, where a couple comes to the US on a tourist visa from abroad (perfectly legally). She hides her pregnancy or doesn't show. She can overstay her visa or possibly extend, have the baby in the US and the baby in entitled to US citizenship. The parents having secured a US passport for their child go back to their home country, never paying taxes in the US and raising their children outside of the US. We are producing citizens who know nothing of the US and are not even living there at any time.
Well, now the Mexican police are obligated to return them. Of course, American citizens used to commit murder here and hide in Mexico (and vice versa.) It's not much, but it's a start. These little arrangements probably are more important than the more specacular stuff.
The childish gibberish started when you started calling people who didn't agree with you "ignorant." That's probably why Juanita left you, Mr. Elducko!
And it's so cute how you use the argument "none of the other countries do it!" to complain about some poor child being granted citizenship just because he was born in the USA.
America is different. The right to citizenship of those born here has become a principle of law, one that is unlikely to ever change. And I'll betcha that most Americans support that principle.
Response on post #111
The fact is that you are "ignorant". Constitutionally ignorant. You are also arrogant and rude.
And it's so cute how you use the argument "none of the other countries do it!"
This is a fact. It's a generally accepted policy by most all countries of the world that - now read this carefully - that a child born of two foreign nationals, who are in the country WITHOUT VISA, is the nationality of the parents and not the country of nativity.
The right to citizenship of those born here has become a principle of law, one that is unlikely to ever change. And I'll betcha' that most Americans support that principle.
The left in this country has been able to slip that policy past the nose of Americans. It may be, as you say "a principal of law", but only recently and only temporary. And I'll betcha' that most Americans would vote to repeal the 14th. Amendment and eventually will.
That's probably why Juanita left you, Mr. Elducko![childish moron]
As for my girlfriend "Juanita", asshole, her name is Nina, she is a Mexican national and I married her sometime ago while I was in the Army fighting for morons like you to remain ignorant. She is still a Mexican citizen and my daughter has dual citizenship. Stuff that paradox in your rice hole.
OK, Mr. Supreme Court Justice, if my daughter marries another American, becomes pregnant here in the USA, but gives birth to the child on the Island of Taiwan, is the child a Taiwanese citizen?
No. That would only make me smarter than you, you racist rice ball.
Oh, yeah, you're one smart dufus alright! "Thar gonna repeal the 14th Amendment! Yup! That's whut thar gonna do! Then we'ns can keep all them ferners outa here! [banjo music playing in background]."
[Note to readers. I always start out nice and respectful. But when some crackerheaded goober tells me I'm ignorant, then shows his own ignorance through a series of non-sensical replies, well, I just can't help but engage in a bit of sport.]
You're playing semantics.
...Because the Founding Fathers were precise and used these terms in the contexts intended....
"The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance, also, the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head;Federalist 44-
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm
Are you one of those that claim that "rights" are implied?
Yeah,you got me.Saw right through me.I am one of those who believes that I was born with rights,which may have been merely implied before they were stated in no uncertain terms in the Declaration of Independence.
Had the Founding Fathers wanted to grant rights to the states - and I don't know by what authority the feds could do that - the 10th Amendment would have said so.
The founders were not granting rights to the states but limiting their(constituents')rights,like ANY form of government.Far from granting rights,we in America believe that rights precede government,and that governments are established to preserve those rights.And the authority comes from the consent of the governed.
I hate to disillusion you,...
No worries about that.
No I'm not. You're just po'd and confused because some of your long held, but erroneous beliefs are, in fact, wrong!
Federalist 44-
The Federalist paper No. 44, is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. The use of the word "rights" in these papers were for the popular understanding of the times to a not entirely literate society. See the wording of the 9th Amendment and you see the Founding Fathers make a direct connection between "the people" and "rights". Rights are superior to "powers" and that is why the distinction.
If you actually believe that powers and rights are interchangeable and mean the same thing, then you have just condemned this country to become the totalitarian society that we all fear. The Left believes that government has "rights". The concept of rights and powers is the struggle against the socialists that we are engaged in. Socialists/Collectivists believe that government has "right's".
Are you one of those that claim that "rights" are implied?
No.
I am one of those who believes that I was born with rights,
So am I!
Far from granting rights,we in America believe that rights precede government,...
I agree. Rights existed before government.
...and that governments are established to preserve those rights.
Yes, governments are empowered by the governed to protect rights that existed before government.
And the authority comes from the consent of the governed.
Yes, with "the people", where ultimately, all rights and powers reside.
So what's your beef?
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.