aleshanee > 10-30-2018, 10:20 PM
praise_yeshua > 10-31-2018, 02:58 PM
Quote:...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
The Rogue Tomato > 10-31-2018, 03:56 PM
(10-30-2018, 10:20 PM)aleshanee Wrote: president trump wants to change it with an executive order.......... .... but my advice to president trump... .. as if he would take it....
is... ... NO..... DON'T TOUCH IT !!!! ....
remember exodus 1-8 and leave the 14th amendment alone.......... ...leave it as is...... and here is why......
at present it requires a constitutional super majority plus ratification by the states to change any part of the u.s. constitution.... . including an amendment..... but if a new precident is ever set that allows a constitutional amendment to be changed or rescinded by an exective order...... then that will be the death of freedom in this country as we know it..... .. once a political party that doesn;t care for our cherished freedoms gets back into office... they will take up their "phones and pens"..... like obama was fond of saying... and a solitary person with that same clintonian-obananesque state of mind will be able to scribble our constitutional rights out of existence.... .... ..
the democrats have already set the 2nd amendment in their sights as being a part of the constitution they want to repeal..... others of muslim persuasion.... though few would admit to that just yet..... hope to change the 1st amendment some day..... making islam the official religion of the united states..... ...if you don;t believe me.... find an honest and devout muslim leader and ask him.... or her......or just look back at some of the things hijab wearing linda sarsour and barack omabas advisor valeri jarret said.......
exodus 1-8 .....now there arose up a new king over egypt, which knew not joseph
a good thing to remember when you get too comfortable with the powers that be
aleshanee > 11-03-2018, 06:01 PM
(10-31-2018, 02:58 PM)praise_yeshua Wrote: I believe he will rightfully focus on the application of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part of the 14th amendment to give guidance (which is within his privileges as President) to the executive processing of immigration.
That part of the 14th amendment has never been fully vetted.
It is clear to me, that the 14th amendment was never written to included children of parents outside of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the US. Which is exactly what illegal immigrants are. They are NOT " subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Jacob M. Howard
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"
Quote:...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
The Rogue Tomato > 11-03-2018, 06:11 PM
(10-31-2018, 02:58 PM)praise_yeshua Wrote: I believe he will rightfully focus on the application of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part of the 14th amendment to give guidance (which is within his privileges as President) to the executive processing of immigration.
That part of the 14th amendment has never been fully vetted.
It is clear to me, that the 14th amendment was never written to included children of parents outside of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the US. Which is exactly what illegal immigrants are. They are NOT " subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Jacob M. Howard
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"
Quote:...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
aleshanee > 11-03-2018, 06:26 PM
(11-03-2018, 06:11 PM)The Rogue Tomato Wrote:(10-31-2018, 02:58 PM)praise_yeshua Wrote: I believe he will rightfully focus on the application of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part of the 14th amendment to give guidance (which is within his privileges as President) to the executive processing of immigration.
That part of the 14th amendment has never been fully vetted.
It is clear to me, that the 14th amendment was never written to included children of parents outside of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the US. Which is exactly what illegal immigrants are. They are NOT " subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Jacob M. Howard
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"
Quote:...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
If I recall correctly, the amendment was written and approved in order to make liberated slaves citizens. If so, then I have to retract my earlier statement, because the intent of the law was not to provide citizenship to children of illegals if they're born within our borders. So no constitutional change would be necessary. It would simply have to go to SCOTUS in order to rule on the original intent.
Quote:persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
The Rogue Tomato > 11-04-2018, 02:56 PM
(11-03-2018, 06:26 PM)aleshanee Wrote: these things could happen anyway in a future where liberals have taken full control of government... ... but there is no reason conservatives should help them along by setting dangerous precidents within the law now.......
praise_yeshua > 11-05-2018, 06:51 PM
(11-03-2018, 06:26 PM)aleshanee Wrote:(11-03-2018, 06:11 PM)The Rogue Tomato Wrote:(10-31-2018, 02:58 PM)praise_yeshua Wrote: I believe he will rightfully focus on the application of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part of the 14th amendment to give guidance (which is within his privileges as President) to the executive processing of immigration.
That part of the 14th amendment has never been fully vetted.
It is clear to me, that the 14th amendment was never written to included children of parents outside of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the US. Which is exactly what illegal immigrants are. They are NOT " subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Jacob M. Howard
During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"
Quote:...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
If I recall correctly, the amendment was written and approved in order to make liberated slaves citizens. If so, then I have to retract my earlier statement, because the intent of the law was not to provide citizenship to children of illegals if they're born within our borders. So no constitutional change would be necessary. It would simply have to go to SCOTUS in order to rule on the original intent.
but the key language in that statement regarding who it will not include is this.....
Quote:persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
families of ambassadors or foriegn ministers are granted certain exemptions to u.s. laws... .. and in most ways still are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they work for or represent.. .. .. but people who travelled across a u.s. border to escape another country.... . whether legally or not... and even those who are merely visiting the u.s. on approved visas but not connected to the government of a foreign country.. are definitely subject to u.s. law and the jurisdiction thereof... ... they fall under the phrase of "every other class of person".... which should be included and covered under the admendment....
if they are going to get nitpicky about one sentence in the statement then they have be nitpicky about the whole thing..... i.m.h.o.
......................
now.... here is the problem i see with trump issuing an order like the one he is considering.... and allowing it to be decided by the supreme court......
for decades now liberals bent on gun control and gun confiscation, have argued that the language in the 2nd amendment specifies "bearing arms" was intended only for established and "well regulated" militias.... .. meaning a group under direct government control.... .... they would love to have their case viewed by a future liberal court and be able to show that the precident of rescinding rights granted under constitutional amemdment through exective order has already been established... ... especially if they could show it was a conservative president that established it........
we also have elected politicians now who are muslim and have openly expressed their view that sharia law should be established as the law of the united states.... ...they would also love to see the 1st amendment reinterpretated allowing them to make executive orders supporting their beliefs based the phrase.... "shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof"....... .... they see a person in government... as long as they are muslim.... enforcing their own religious belief as law as simply a person being allowed the free exercise of their religion.....
these things could happen anyway in a future where liberals have taken full control of government... ... but there is no reason conservatives should help them along by setting dangerous precidents within the law now.......