Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krauthammer: Dead Wrong on the 14th
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 5 August 2010 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 08/06/2010 5:32:26 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: Congressman Billybob

I find Krauthammer dead wrong on any item pertaining to Illegal Aliens. He is Open Borders/Pro-Illegal Alien Amnesty.

Your analysis was spot on Congressman BillyBob. Notice that the ones bringing up the 14th Amendment issue (notably Lindsey Graham) are the most pro-Amnesty in Congress. The 14th Amendment issue is just a ruse to fool the public...while Graham and other pro-Illegal/Anti-American politicians try to pass Illegal Alien Amnesty


21 posted on 08/06/2010 7:07:00 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (JD for Senate ..... jdforsenate.com. You either voting for JD, or voting for the Liberal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum
My question is that when interpreting the 14th amendment, it is possible to give the legal term -- "jurisdiction"-- a different meaning than its "ordinary" meaning depending on the context? Or is the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment reference to "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" mean physical presence in the US when born?

14th Amendment jurisdiction is deep voodo. But ultimately, it is CORPORATE jurisdiction, NOT common law, natural human person jurisdiction. In fact, the Bill of Rights without connection to the 14th Amendment is completely different than the Bill of Rights with connection to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment replaces rights with privileges, and does not legally have to declare it has done so. So rights that have been turned into privileges may, under the same 14th Amendment that changed them, also still be called rights, and by their same name. But they aren't rights anymore - they are government-issued privileges called rights that may be restricted or terminated at any time by that government.

Oh, and the government is not required to define any of this, even if it is applying it in court, law, or administration.

22 posted on 08/06/2010 7:09:10 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum

The 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to provide legislative clarification regarding the issue of persons “subject to the jurisdiction”, including how that applies to instances where a person not subject to the jurisdiction is treated when a criminal act is involved. I’m of the opinion that the 14th Amendment was written specifically to address the issue of citizenship, not to address who is “under the jurisdiction” in criminal cases. I also believe that your question has already been answered by the numerous cases of illegal aliens who have been adjudicated in American courts and then returned to their country of origin upon release from jail/prison. I posit that they were deemed not to be under the jurisdiction with respect to citizenship, but were with respect to violating some law.


23 posted on 08/06/2010 7:10:39 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: jtonn; Congressman Billybob

Yeah, I’m getting virus warning on the site as well.


25 posted on 08/06/2010 7:15:48 PM PDT by gitmo ( The democRats drew first blood. It's our turn now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The amendment that is needed to this and other parts of the Constitution is: WE REALLY MEAN IT.

ML/NJ

26 posted on 08/06/2010 7:17:10 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Bump the BillyBob man.


27 posted on 08/06/2010 7:19:50 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator ( Who is John Galt?...heck...Who is Hugh Series?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Who gets to say who are "subject to the jurisdiction"? Congress can solve the anchor baby problem immediately by a statute.

Lets hope it has already been said. Otherwise, a socialist-controlled Congress could address the issue within the next few months pursuant to its agenda.

One can argue that if the aberration on which the significant "anchor-baby" policy is based simply appeared in a judicial footnote, then correcting the policy is the objective. If the open borders crowd seek a judicial review of the footnote, they should fail given the history of the 14th.

In any event, it does not seem necessary or warranted to rewrite the 14th.

Thank you for the link!

28 posted on 08/06/2010 7:21:30 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Wake up America! You are losing the war against your families and your Constitution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well, Congressman Billybob, let me put you on the spot a little bit.

During Civil War Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans informed the southern states that they would NOT be allowed back into the Union unless they ratified the 14th Amendment.

How can a “state” that is NOT a state be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment? And how can an amendment be considered “ratified” by a state that is not a state?

Just want to get your opinion on this conundrum....


29 posted on 08/06/2010 7:27:29 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid
1) At the present time, yes. This will not always be the case. The question is whether, when conservatives do regain “power”, there is anyone with the political balls to write such legislation.

2) I don't agree that differentiation is difficult. What is difficult is getting the votes for legislation which provides clarification of the issue.

3) Since the 14th Amendment provides the vehicle for legislative action, I'd posit that the courts would not be able to overturn said law if one were to be passed. Especially given that a law already exists that prohibits foreign diplomats from claiming U.S. citizenship for their child if born in the U.S. That provides the precedents needed.

30 posted on 08/06/2010 7:27:38 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Well, how would such a statute be worded? Do we shoot for including ALL the anchor babies in the country, or just those born after a certain date? IMHO, it needs to be done, and either way, needs to be done quickly. I tasked my congresscritter a couple of years ago with exactly this same possible way out of our problem, and never got a reply, or even a sneer. Thanks, John. More publicity on this sure can't hurt.
31 posted on 08/06/2010 7:30:32 PM PDT by Southbound ("A liar in public life is worse than a full-paid-up Communist, and I don't care who he is." - HST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Rephrase the sentence. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

That does not change the meaning of the sentence and explains who says who is under the jurisdiction.


32 posted on 08/06/2010 7:35:52 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jtonn
I would agree that Krauthammer missed the mark on the construction of the 14th amendment, but I believe his main point was first things first. Build the wall and secure the border. We can sort out the rest later.
33 posted on 08/06/2010 7:56:30 PM PDT by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


34 posted on 08/06/2010 10:29:02 PM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

John, we are oftentimes on opposite sides of the liberty debates, with me calling for less government in areas you and others want more (including Krauthammer) but on this you are spot on!


35 posted on 08/06/2010 11:06:15 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Great analysis plus every day we have eveidence that Mexico considers its wayward citizens here to still be under Mexican jurisdiction. Mexico does this by issuing matricula consular ID cards to Mexican illegal aliens at its US consulates. Legal Mexicans can get them too, then they have a convenient alternate ID to use in criminal situations.

Mexico has also interfered in numerous court cases on US soil that involved illegal alien Mexicans. A well known one was in Texas where it agitated publicly and hired lawyers for an illegal alien murderer in Texas. Trying to save this scumbag from the death penalty. Mexico failed, thank God!

Mexico makes great efforts to set up voting operations on US soil so it citizens can vote in Mexican elections. Of course being an illegal alien is not a factor. The legals and illegals both can vote

Mexico is claiming jurisdiction all the time. We don’t need to amend the Constitution. We just need the right laws passed and a judge to rule on it who is not traitorous


36 posted on 08/07/2010 2:05:43 AM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
I just heard from the Director of the website. Under a former webmaster, they were hacked into oblivion by liberal hackers 14 times. They had to change the name. It is now www.chronwatch-america.com, which is their current site. They are trying to get Google and Norton to stop looking at the old and abandoned website.

John / Billybob

37 posted on 08/07/2010 6:23:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator
Thank you very much.

John / Billybob

38 posted on 08/07/2010 6:26:23 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
I haven't looked into the math of the ratification of the 14th. I do know that the rebel states were required to ratify the Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th, 15th). What I do not know is whether those had adequate states for ratification from the Union states, and the requirement was only to make certain that the ratification would not be undone.

John / Billybob

39 posted on 08/07/2010 6:31:20 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Off topic, is Heath going to lose this time?

I think I saw a piece saying he is in trouble.


40 posted on 08/07/2010 6:31:43 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Greetings Jacques. The revolution is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson