Posted on 08/24/2015 6:10:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
And this has been going on for a long time. Most of it started with Roosevelt appointees, but it was happening a long time before that as well.
And it was a very stupid amendment. At best, it should only have applied to people serving in the armed forces. It never should have given those hippie draft-dodgers more power.
I have not seen a response from him since I asked about the citizenship status of his Children. The Silence. has. been. deafening.
One would think Captain Misinformation would be falling all over himself to attempt to counteract all the articles about the correct meaning of the 14th amendment, yet... crickets...
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. :)
The 26th Amendment (to lower the voting age) whipsawed through the states like a Category 5 hurricane. About three months after it was introduced into Congress, the 26th was US law.
Given the current national furor, an amendment to ditch anchor babies would enjoy a similar victory.
How many state legislatures do Republicans control? What percentage have to pass this? You're right - this could be easy.
“those in the country illegally (whether domiciled or not)”
This comment and others you made indicate you didn’t even read this essay by Eastman.
I suspect that you are one of those who thinks "I'd vote to end birthright citizenship. So would the people I know, and the people I discuss things with online. So would the presidential candidate I support. It would be a slam dunk!!"
You need to get out of the echo chamber, and check out the rest of the country for a few days.......
Lawyers are an overrated bunch. You're correct Gray did not hold that anchor babies by illegal aliens on US soil as citizens.
“I might add, if they do not get on the vessel of conveyance, discretionary applications of non-existence might be in order.”
Why should they have a vessel of conveyance?
We could have them running for the border of their own volition.
Sample legislation.
A person found within the United States, having entered illegally, shall:
1. Receive fifty lashes on the back with a cat o’nine tails.
2. Be branded on both cheeks with the letter “B” for “border crasher,” said brand to be two inches tall.
3. Forfeit all monies and properties earned or amassed in the United States, wherever located.
4. Walk from where apprehended to the Mexican border on a diet of beans and tortillas, sleeping in the open.
6. On their journey, ejectees shall pick up trash, cut grass with scythes and other unpowered tools, trim roadside shrubbery, clean rest area toilets, and perform such other tasks as may be ordered, said tasks not to be unduly hazardous.
7. Any person seen with the letter “B” branded on the cheeks who is not a member of a guarded ejectee party may be shot and killed on sight by any U.S. citizen at any time.
8. Idiots may offer ejectees food and water if they like. The penalty for providing ejectees with arms or assisting them to escape shall be death by firing squad, following a guilty verdict in a trial to be conducted by three officers of the U.S. military.
9. Any attempt to bribe a guard is punishable by death, following a guilty verdict in a trial to be conducted by three officers of the U.S. military. A bribe can be monetary or in the form of goods and services, especially including carnal services.
10. Any guard accepting a bribe shall be executed by hanging following a guilty verdict in a trial to be conducted by three officers of the U.S. military.
12. After the great majority of illegal aliens have been ejected, two fences 20 feet tall and 50 feet apart shall be erected on the Mexican side of the border. The area between the fences shall be heavily planted with anti-personnel mines. Motion-sensor-activated machine guns shall be emplaced in such a way as to cover the entire area between the fences with interlocking fields of fire.
13. The President of the United States shall, before the UN General Assembly, tell the President of Mexico to kiss his ass.
14. The organization known as “La Raza” and all similar groups are hereby designated domestic enemies of the Constitution. Active membership in such organizations shall be punished by death.
Announce that and see how long it takes them to self-deport.
My approach is to simply repeal an existing act, the one which bestowed citizenship on Indians in the first place.
Now that I think about it, we don't even need to replace it. All current Indians in our borders are already American Citizens, so the act no longer serves any purpose.
We can repeal it now, and it won't even affect American Indians, it will only affect Mexican/Central/SouthAmerican and Canadian Indians.
My point here is, What is the court going to say to that? You can't argue it's Unconstitutional because it has an established history. It would be too great a departure from the truth for even the lyingest of courts, I hope.
It would be using the explicit words of the 14th against the Courts, and they can hardly say the "penumbra of equality" they see in the 14th can override the clear and explicit words denying such citizenship.
If you say so. Not that my reading of the OP is important or even relevant, I did read it. That Eastman conditions domicile on legal presence doesn't mean a court will.
Too bad we can’t throw out several dozens judges off the bench to let them do honest work.
Yoo stroking O'Reilly's ego the other day said something to the effect that 'they want to take us back to the days Dred Scott' by doing away with "birthright" citizenship. LoL.
Yeah sure idiot.
OK, so I’m full of crap.
Please outline for me your idea about HOW the end of birthright citizenship can be accomplished without a constitutional amendment. I’m not taking sides on the legal question of who is right about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of”, I want to know exactly HOW your vision of things can proceed to a successful conclusion (and, while you’re at it, please define “success”).
The law (and the courts) consider intent when determining a person's domicile, which can be different from his residence. The author cites the Black's Law Dictionary definition but ignores the critical legal requirement of intent applied therein.
According to Black's, residence signifies living in a particular locality while domicile means living in that locality with the intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
Wong Kim Ark has significant deficiencies. Those who haven't studied it at length will find that citing it in defense of one's position can be problematic. Ask anyone on either side of the Obama "birther" debate.
The Supreme Court knows there is no stare decisis by SCOTUS holding anchor babies as US citizens.
Or Brennen in 1982 would not have go cite in a lame footnote about some author’s opinion from the early 20th century if Gray held the same in the WKA opinion.
Two questions:
1) Do you believe Congress has the power to revoke YOUR citizenship? If so, why, if not, why not?
2) What are the chances that any Congress bought and paid for by the Cheap Labor Express will ever enact such a statute?
Republican control of a legislature makes it pro-illegal immigration.
The same is true for those who are in this country illegally.
I think the law professor is entirely wrong about this as it relates to illegal aliens. They are subject to our conscription laws, and if domiciled here they can be convicted of treason.
An EO from the President pursuant to the Supreme Law of the Land.
Yes, since Trump commandeered the GOP half of the nomination process, birthright citizenship/anchor babies are finally getting the spotlight they need and require. But no, I hadn’t noticed the absence of a certain obot troll. If your question had nothing to do with his disappearance, then that is one amazing coincidence.
I was hilariously entertained, however, when one of the other obot trolls stepped into the birthright citizenship debate...and got his butt handed to him on a platter.
What happened was, he tried the old, ‘if they weren’t subject to our jurisdiction, we couldn’t deport them,’ routine. The respondent came back with, ‘if a pregnant woman breaks into your house and gives birth, are she and her baby now full members of your household/family, with all the rights and privileges thereof?’
The thread heard no more from said troll. To no one’s regret.
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.