Posted on 10/30/2018 5:20:54 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
I knew I was courting trouble when I mentioned Lincoln.
But I like the guy so held firm to me.
I would have said Ronald Reagan but this order clears up a USC issue and eclipses RR’s administration IMHO.
Judge Thomas may be the best thing to come from the administration of George H. W. Bush but I have seen some comments to the effect that Judge Thomas may be thinking of doing some other things rather than remaining on the bench until death. If that is the case I would wish him well and encourage him to retire while President Trump can be certain to pick his replacement.
Indeed. The proof of that lies right in the first sentence...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, "
If a person is first in violation of the laws within the jurisdiction of the United States, said person is not eligible to be a citizen. They should be detained, charged, tried, convicted and deported.
“The Constitution can’t be changed with an EO.”
It does not need to be changed, only interpreted correctly. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has a meaning and the courts have ignored the meaning of that phrase, it was NOT thrown in just to add meaningless verbiage.
Back when this was onesy-twosy stuff this wasn’t considered such a grave matter.
Now that it is staggering the ability of the USA to assimilate, and openly warping the political process by being allowed a swaying hand in a major political party, it seems time to invoke a separate provision of the Constitution to “protect the states against invasion.”
The original idea was to cement the rights of former domestic born slaves. The jurisdiction clause is technically broad enough to cover a lot of mischievous things. If I visit Canada and drive my car and I speed and I get a ticket, the jurisdiction I am subject to with respect to that act is Canada’s. That doesn’t mean I’m a Canadian citizen. Constitutional amendments need to be spelled out painfully clear to avert abuse.
Chief Brody
Are illegal aliens “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or are in defiance of that jurisdiction?
An originalist justice would base his decision on the meaning of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at time the amendment was ratified, not what libs or conservatives want it to mean today. Any legal scholars here know what the meaning of that clause was at the time of ratification?
According to the wording of 14th Amendment, he can.
The debate has always been are children of illegals “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It looks like we’re going to find out.
I’m pretty skeptical too, but then I have been a Vikings fan for almost 50 years and a conservative for more than half that time. I have learned (painfully) to not get my hopes up.
“The Civil War amendments were created to Centralize power in DC so that slavery and discrimination could be outlawed. It’s time to repeal them because they are now used by the left in ways far beyond the intent. They have effectively erased the 9th and 10th admendments with this centalization of power.”
Agreed.
I am not a lawyer (actually hate the way laws are written full technicalities) but I quoted something on Rep King’s site. Who knows, maybe this is the fruit of the poison tree. If illegal and in the process of committing a crime, certain rights are limited.
The courts restricts constitutional rights of criminals all the the time. The right to own a gun, vote, be near a school, house arrest, etc... Let’s not water it down, they are here illegally, by being here they are in the act of committing a crime.
Agree. He can’t do this. I am suspicious of the story. His people would have told him a president can’t override the constitution by EO.
Yep. Roy Scheider. 👍
So whose is subject to the jurisdiction? You're dealing with two separate persons here. The born and the unborn.
Do it. Even if the Judiciary overturns it, it is a poltical battle worth fighting.
Some time in politics having the fight, even if you lose, is better then conceding the field to the enemy.
In every country with whose citizenship laws I have some familiarity, the child is subject to the same jurisdictions as the parent, since children (especially infants} have no legal capacity to accept or reject legal jurisdiction of a nation. In exceptional cases the child can be taken away from the parent and becomes a ward of the state. In that case the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If the child is unborn it does not come under the jurisdiction of the US at the time the mother crosses our border. The issue of birthright citizenship does not apply to unborn children of illegal alien mothers. However, if you are referencing the abortion question, the born, unborn distinction is much more significant.
I rather prefer the phrase, "Clear and present danger." I hope Trump uses it in his EO.
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.