[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Ann Coulter: Correcting Bill O’Reilly (Again!) On “Birthright” Citizenship And The Constitution
Source: VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-c ... tizenship-and-the-constitution
Published: Aug 27, 2015
Author: Ann Coulter
Post Date: 2015-08-27 11:54:35 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 6268
Comments: 57

To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent—but dearly hoped-for—Jeb! administration, live, during his show.

(Apparently my debate with O’Reilly will be conducted in my column, Twitter feed and current bestselling book, Adios, America, against the highest-rated show on cable news.)

Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they’re popping up on Fox News’ airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol.

Last Thursday’s job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo [Email him] and David Rivkin. [Email him]

In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years”—Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.”

Yes, Americans fought at Valley Forge to ensure that any illegal alien who breaks into our country and drops a baby would have full citizenship for that child! Why, when Washington crossed the Delaware, he actually was taking Lupe, a Mexican illegal, to a birthing center in Trenton, N.J.

If one were being a stickler, one might recall the two centuries during which the children of slaves were not deemed citizens despite being born here—in fact, despite their parents, their grandparents and their great- grandparents being born here.

Wouldn’t anyone who wasn’t applying for a job in the nonexistent, never-to- exist Jeb! administration remember slavery?

Incongruously, Yoo also said, “The text of the 14th Amendment is clear” about kids born to illegals being citizens.

Wait a minute! Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law— since “the founding of the republic”!

An impartial observer might contest whether the amendment is “clear” on that. “Clear” would be: All persons born in the United States are citizens.

What the amendment actually says is: “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.”

The framers of the 14th Amendment weren’t putting a secret trap door in the Constitution for fun. The “jurisdiction thereof” and “state wherein they reside” language means something. (Ironically, Yoo—author of the Gitmo torture memo—was demonstrating that if you torture the words of the Constitution, you can get them to say anything.)

At least Rivkin didn’t go back to “the founding of the republic.” But he, too, claimed that the “original public meaning (of the 14th Amendment] which matters for those of us who are conservatives is clear”: to grant citizenship to any kid whose illegal alien mother managed to evade Border Patrol agents.

Whomever that was the “original public meaning” for, it sure wasn’t the Supreme Court.

To the contrary, the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone:

Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873): “(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879): “[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot.”

Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880): “The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted … to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States.”

Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson): “The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color.”

Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884): “The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States … The evident meaning of (the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized …”

One has to leap forward 200 years from “the founding of the republic” to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982.

So to be precise, what Yoo means by the “founding of the republic,” and Rivkin means by “the original public meaning” of the 14th Amendment, is: “Brennan dicta from a 1982 opinion.”

Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a “constitutional” right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy- one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.)

But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Yoo and Rivkin aren’t stupid. It appears that the most significant part of their analysis was Yoo’s legal opinion: “I don’t think Trump is a Republican. I think actually he is ruining the Republican Party.” Please hire me, Jeb!! (or Rubio)!

O’Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nativist nationalist, nolu chan (#0)

O’Reilly could get more reliable constitutional analyses from Columba Bush than political lawyers dying to get back into government.

The despicable, ever-spinning O'Leprechaun is...an blithering idiot. He is obviously a tool of the Uni-Party

Coulter...when she's right can be devastatingly effective. ("Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a 'constitutional' right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family." HA!

The 14A -- if scrutinized -- CAN be overturned. It was clearly language and an amendment whose sole purpose was to protect and reinforce the citizenship of LEGAL slaves and blacks. The 14th Amendment needs to be revisited, parsed, and re-interpreted and enforced as per its original intent. Preferably BEFORE another 50 million illegal Third World jetsam and flotsam arrive and coincidentally drops their payload (as it stands.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   12:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

But it is a fact that the citizenship of illegal alien kids has never been argued, briefed or ruled on by the Supreme Court.

It is undeniable fact that this is irrelevant.

Is the child a person?

Was the child born in the U.S.?

Was the child, when born, subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

If so, the child was born a citizen of the U.S.A.

The court decisions since 1871 leave no doubt.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   13:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Liberator (#1)

To support his insane interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is now taking job applications for the nonexistent—but dearly hoped-for—Jeb! administration, live, during his show.

For an earlier example of Ann Coulter making provocative legally insane statements as her fabulously successful way of making a living, there is her 2010 article, Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2010-08-04.html

The 14A -- if scrutinized -- CAN be overturned

This is nonsense, just like Ann Coulter.

In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years”—Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.”

They should have included "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which excludes the children born of ambassadors and foreign ministers.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   13:27:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#2)

The court decisions since 1871 leave no doubt.

I respectfully disagree with what you deem a slam-dunk decision....AND premise.

The automatic citizenship of illegal alien ANCHOR BABIES needs to be re-examined and 14th Amendment scrutinized and scrubbed. Just because a woman trespasses and drops their newborn in your bed while you were at work doesn't mean your bed OR house is co-opted.

If ANYTHING is "relevant," it's the invalidation of the contemporary subversive interpretation of 14A's loophole that is now so abused that it threatens the very existence of the Republic. Its original intent was NOT as it's being practiced and abused.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   13:35:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#3) (Edited)

They should have included "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which excludes the children born of ambassadors and foreign ministers.

And why can't the illegal droppings of trespassers being interpreted as "ambassadors"...or just plain "criminal foreign personal contraband"?

The INTENT and PURPOSE for the 14A is absolutely in question and up for serious debate.

Technically, if you and your ilk want to insist on "citizenship" based on a bogus 14A scam -- an illegal act of trespassing, theft, and unauthorized entry -- then the US can and should make a case that ALL foreign babies are "contraband" and placed into orphanages UNTIL claimed and returned TO Mexico/China/Central America along with their criminal hosts/parents.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-27   13:43:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nolu chan (#2)

The court decisions since 1871 leave no doubt.

Yet for some reason there was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. On top of that, I really don't care what the courts say. Iranian can vote, but Khamenei the tyrant can do as he pleases, because he gets to "interpret" divine intent. Just because we can be over-ruled by 5 tyrants in black robes rather than 1 does not make it legitimate.

There is a preamble to the Constitution, the 1971 "interpretation" consigns the preamble to the ash heap.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-08-27   14:31:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: nativist nationalist, goldilucky (#6)

Yet for some reason there was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. On top of that, I really don't care what the courts say.

I realize you don't care what the courts say, or have said since 1776. That is clear. Only by selective citing of nonsense can you reach your desired result. I like court opinions. The collection of court opinions is what makes up the common law. They say what the law is.

Citing the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is bullshit added to the bullshit citing of The Slaughterhouse Cases

Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873): “(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

and Elk v. Wilkins by Ann Coulter.

Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884): “The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States … The evident meaning of (the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized …”

- - - - -

Try In re Wong Kim Ark 71 Fed. Rep. 382 (1896)

At 385:

Finally, it is maintained that the United States supreme court, in interpreting the first clause of the fourteenth amendment, now in question, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, adopted, to all intents and purposes, the rule of international law, when it said through Mr. Justice Miller:

“The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

The interpretation, by the supreme court, in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. 8. 102,5 Sup. Ct. 41, of this same phrase is also cited in support of the contention made in favor of the rule of international law. On the other hand, counsel for petitioner contend that what the supreme court said in the Slaughterhouse Cases, supra, is but mere dictum, and that, outside of a few scattered observations of this character, that trlbunal has never directly passed upon the question presented for decision in this matter, viz. whether a person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen. But it is claimed that that question has been adjudicated in this circuit in two cases, and that the law, as there expounded, is in favor of the citizenship of the petitioner, and, being the law of this circuit, is controlling upon this court. The first of these, and the one which is principally relied on, is In re Look Tin Sing, to be found reported in 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. 905, and decided in 1884. The second is the case of Gee Fook Sing v. U. S., reported in 1 C. C. A. 211, 49 Fed. 146, and 7 U. S. App. 27. The last case is a decision of the circuit court of appeals for this circuit (Ninth), rendered in 1892, which reaches the same conclusion as did the circuit court In re Look Tin Sing. The case of Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch, 583, — a decision rendered in 1844, and before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, by Hon, Lewis H. Sandford, assistant vice chancellor of the First circuit of the court of chancery of the state of New York, — was also pressed upon the attention of the court as authority showing that it was the common-law doctrine of citizenship, and not that of the law of nations, which had been recognized in this country previous to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. ‘While the two decisions rendered in this circuit would seem, upon the principle of stare decisis, to be conclusive upon the question raised here, and controlling on this court, yet, in view of the fact that it has been argued on the part of the government, and very forcibly, that the supreme court laid down in the Slaughterhouse Cases a doctrine at variance with that announced in these decisions, and, as claimed, in consonance with that of the law of nations, it will be necessary to examine these cases with care, and at some length. The question is an important one, not alone from an abstract point of view, but because of the consequences a decision unfavorable to the petitionerwould involve; for, if the contention of counsel for the government be correct, it will inevitably result that thousands of persons of both sexes who have been heretofore considered as citizens of the United States, and have always been treated as such, will be, to all intents and purposes, denationalised and remanded to a state of alienage. Included among these are thousands of voters who are exercising the right of suffrage as American citizens, and whose right as such is not, and never has been, questioned,’ because birth within the country seems to have been recognized generally as conclusive upon the question of citizenship. But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question. Nor was there any definition; in the constitution or in the acts of congress, of what constituted citizenshop, until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. At the common law, if the parent be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of the child’s birth be within the king’s obedience as well as in the dominion, the child becomes a subject of the realm; in other words, birth within the realm was deemed conclusive. This was decided in Calvin’s Case, reported by Lord Coke, 7 Coke, 1, and has always been recognized as the common-law doctrine. 1 Bl. Comm. 366; 2 Kent, Comm. 9; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583; U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151. By the law of nations, birth follows the political status of the father, and of the mother when the child is illegitimate. Bar, Int. Law, § 31; Vatt. Law Nat. §§ 212-215; Sav. Priv. Int. Law, § 351.

at 386:

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.

at 387:

The learned justice then continues:

“The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that ‘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.’ This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered: and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must at the time be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This extraterritoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents. Persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country, whilst within the waters of the United States, and consequently within their territorial jurisdiction, are also excepted. They are considered as born in the country to which the vessel belongs. In the sense of public law, they are not born within the jurisdiction of the United States. The language used has also a more extended purpose. It was designed to except from citizenship persons who, though born or naturalized in the United States, have renounced their allegiance to our government, and thus dissolved their political connection with the country. The United States recognized the right of every one to expatriate himself and choose another country.”

* * * * *

“With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fonrteenth amendment, ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship; and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.”

at 388:

After adverting to the objects of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment, and to the fact that one of the purposes of its enactment was to overturn the doctrine enunciated in the Dred Scott Case, the opinion continues:

“Independently of the constitutional provision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports (1 Sandf., Cli. 58a). In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York, in 1819, of alien parents,during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country. and always resided there afterwards, It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general. understanding of. the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind. In illustration of this general understanding,he mentions the fact ‘that when, at an election, an inquiry is made whether the person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country the answer is received as conclusive that he is a citizen; that no one inquires further; no one asks whether his parents were citizens or foreigners; it is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents. He shows also that legislative expositions on the subject speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a great number of the’ states, and establishes conclusively that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord with the general understanding of the profession and of the public,”

at 389:

In 1888, Judge Deady, sitting in the circuit court for the district of Oregon, reached the same conclusion in the case of In re Chin King, 13 Sawy. 333, 35 Fed. 354. He cites In re Look Tin Sing, supra, and Lynch v. Clarke, supra, and holds that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment is but declaratory of the common-law doctrine. See, also, In re Yung Sing Hee, 36 Fed. 437. It is clear that these decisions,—the one rendered in the circuit court of appeals and the other rendered in the circuit court of this district,—determining, as they do, the identical question involved in the case at bar, are conclusive and controlling upon this court, unless the supreme court of the United States has directly and authoritatively, and not by way of dictum, announced and laid down a doctrine at variance with that expounded in the cases in this circuit. The decisions of the supreme court upon all questions necessarily involved in the cause determined must be paramount, as binding authority on this court, to that of any other tribunal in the land. The circuit court of appeals act (March 3, 1891; 26 Stat. 826) has in no wise impaired or diminished the jurisdiction of the supreme court over “any case that involves the construction or application of the constitution of the United States.” As it has been argued (and very plausibly) by counsel for the United States that the supreme court has laid down a different doctrine in the so-called Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, it will be necessary to examine critically the propositions involved in these cases and the language of the court as contained in the prevailing opinion. The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided in 1873, and the opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Miller. In the decision most of the provisions of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the constitution received clear, elaborate, and able interpretation and construction. The main question at issue was as to whether or not the legislature of the state of Louisiana could grant an exclusive right or privilege for 25 years to a corporation created by it to have and maintain slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for inclosing cattle intended for sale or slaughter, within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, in that state; and prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for cattle intended for sale or slaughter, within those limits, and requiring that all cattle and other animals intended for sale or slaughter in that district should be brought to the yards and slaughterhouses of the corporation; and authorizing the corporation to exact certain prescribed fees for the use of its wharves and for each animal landed, and certain prescribed fees for each animal slaughtered, besides the head, feet, gore, and entrails, except of swine.

at 391, quoting from the Slaughterhouse Cases:

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

That this last sentence, which is the expression relied on by counsel for the government, is mere dictum, is plain from what has been stated as the issue involved in those cases. That being so, the observations referred to and relied upon, however persuasive they may appear to be, cannot be accepted as declaring the law in this circuit, at least as against the authority of In re Look Tin Sing, where the question was squarely met and decisively settled.

at 391:

Nor does the interpretation of the phrase in question in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, dispose of the matter. There the question was whether an Indian, born within the United States, and who had severed his tribal relations, was a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. Mr. Justice Gray, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,—birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

In the case of U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 28, 40, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151, it is held that the common-law rule as to citizenship is the law of this country. This decision was made in 1866 in the circuit court for the district of Kentucky. This was about the time when the fourteenth amendment was first proposed to the several states for their adoption, although it was not formally adopted as part of the constitution until July 28, 1868.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   20:21:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Liberator (#4)

The automatic citizenship of illegal alien ANCHOR BABIES needs to be re-examined and 14th Amendment scrutinized and scrubbed.

The question has been asked and answered since 1871. Babies born in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the U.S. "Subject to it's jurisdiction" has been defined quite clearly in accordance with the common law. All 13 original colonies adopted the common law and the constitutional Federal government adopted the common law. 14A does -NOT- create "anchor babies" as it confers no right to anyone but the baby.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   20:26:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Liberator (#5)

And why can't the illegal droppings of trespassers being interpreted as "ambassadors"...or just plain "criminal foreign personal contraband"?

The U.S. cannot designate someone as an ambassador of another nation. No law can define a U.S. citizen as criminal foreign personal contraband. If you desire such a definition, you should propose it to your congressman as a constitutional amendment.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   20:30:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Liberator (#5)

Technically, if you and your ilk want to insist on "citizenship" based on a bogus 14A scam

You and your ilk seek to change the Constitution by legislative or judicial usurpation. If that is acceptable for any provision of the Constitution, then it is acceptable for all parts of the Constitution. Recognizing that blatantly unlawful authority in Congress would effective destroy the Constitution. If Congress or the courts can legislate away what 14A says, they can legislate away what A2 says. Or A1 thru A10.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   20:35:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nativist nationalist (#6)

There is a preamble to the Constitution, the 1971 "interpretation" consigns the preamble to the ash heap.

The "preamble" is not, and never has been, law.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-27   20:38:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

The problem *IS_NOT* anchor babies. The problem *IS* illegal aliens crossing over the US soverign border. The US government has failed the citizenry.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-08-27   21:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#2)

Is the child a person?

Is it. The Consitution has a clear definition of citizen but no definition at all of person. So what do you use as the source for the definition of person?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-27   22:03:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan, Liberator (#8)

14A does -NOT- create "anchor babies" as it confers no right to anyone but the baby.

And the baby becomes the anchor to stay here for its parents, sibs not born here, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc............ 14A clearly creates anchor babies. 14A encourages anchor babies. 14A incentivizes anchor babies.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-27   23:18:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan, Liberator, All (#8)

The question has been asked and answered since 1871. Babies born in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the U.S. "Subject to it's jurisdiction" has been defined quite clearly in accordance with the common law.

How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   0:18:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: nolu chan, Liberator, All (#15)

How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14 (i.e. - brithright citizenship)?

Besides Canada that is.

"The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

Australia (2007)

New Zealand (2005)

Ireland (2005)

France (1993)

India (1987)

Malta (1989)

UK (1983)

Portugal (1981) " Seems that these countries got smart.

OTOH most of South America does as does Mexico. It appears to be exclusievely an American thing, except for Fiji. All of Europe, Asia and Africa do not grant birthright citizenship.

But even Canada is beginning to wise up.

"The concern over birthright citizenship has also been raised in Canada by the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has vowed to crackdown on the situation."

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   0:37:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nativist nationalist, All (#0)

Perhaps, if asked, the Supreme Court would discover a “constitutional” right for illegal aliens to sneak into the country, drop a baby, and win citizenship for the kid and welfare benefits for the whole family. (Seventy- one percent of illegal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.)

Canada is also wising up, as are some in the U.S.

"Canadian Government Plans to Make It Harder to Become a Citizen Citizenship Law to be Changed

by Edward C. Corrigan / December 31st, 2013

Since the Harper Conservative’s have come to power one of the areas which have attracted much of their legislative attention is the Citizenship and Immigration file. In an interview, which has attracted almost no national media attention at time of writing,1 published in the conservative National Post on December 27, 2013 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Chris Alexander, discussed dramatic changes to Canada’s Citizenship laws and which were being considered by the Conservative Government.

In what has been described as the “first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation” the controversial bill is expected to be introduced in the House of Commons sometime in 2014.

Some of the changes being proposed include extending the qualifying period for residence to obtain Canadian Citizenship from the current three years in a four period to a longer period. Minister Alexander suggested that it was “time to consider increasing the threshold.” “I think the balance of considerations is in favour of a longer requirement,” he said. “There’s only one way of truly understanding what it means to be Canadian, what it means to participate in Canadian life, and that is by living here.”

The Canadian government has already been cracking down on “alleged fraud” in reported physical presence in Canada for renewals of Permanent Residence Cards and for the granting of Canadian Citizenship. However, Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) is reportedly investigating over 11,000 suspected cases of fraud. Despite investing huge amounts of time and money, to date only “twelve (12) people have had their citizenship revoked for fraud, despite more than 3000 investigations.”2

Another expected change is the elimination of the automatic grant of Canadian Citizenship for those born in Canada. Reportedly, Canada and the United States are the only developed countries in the World that grant citizenship to individuals born on their territory.

For a number of years Conservatives, and other commentators, have been complaining about “birth tourism” — tourists who come with the purpose of giving birth in Canada so that the child will acquire Canadian Citizenship by right of birth.

Former immigration minister Jason Kenney was adamantly opposed to this current practice. “Granting citizenship based on place of birth is “outdated” and the rules need to change to prevent the proliferation of passport babies.” The new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration echoes this concern. Alexander said, “It’s something we need to look at. There is clearly abuse… People who come here as birth tourists solely for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for newborns and without any intention of immigrating and living here permanently — we need to find a way of addressing that.”

In the United States critics describe these American born children as “anchor babies.” Critics in the US are calling for the elimination of this policy of granting United States Citizenship to all individuals born in the country. They propose limiting the granting of citizenship to babies where at least one parent has permanent residence or citizenship status in the United States.3

On April 17, 2009 a law amending the Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect. The law helped correct a problem in the Citizenship Status of many individuals who fell through the cracks in the law on obtaining Canadian Citizenship prior to the first Canadian Citizenship law which was adopted in 1947. Prior to that date there was no law on the granting of Canadian Citizenship. The 1947 law also required those eligible for Canadian Citizenship to apply before they reached the age of 28. The 1947 Citizenship law, however, also discriminated against women and children born out of wedlock. The April 2009 law addressed some of these issues. Other problems still remained like the so called “lost Canadians” born outside of Canada and before the 1947 law was enacted.

The other major change to Canada’s Citizenship law in the 2009 law was removing the right of Canadians who were born outside of Canada the right to pass on their Citizenship to their children if they were born outside of Canada and did not qualify for the limited exemptions to the law. These exemptions primarily applied to children of Canadian military or government personnel serving overseas.

This change has created many problems for Canadians whose children were born outside of Canada, such as difficulty passing their citizenship to their children. The result is that some of these children end up “stateless” and with no citizenship at all. This is especially the case where the country did not grant citizenship based on birth in the country or only recognized the passing of status though the father. These babies’ Canadian parent’s must then sponsor their children to Canada which creates significant difficulties and delays. If the children are stateless, they normally do not have a passport and cannot travel to Canada or to any other country.

This new proposal to remove the acquisition of citizenship by birth, however, may also create a problem for such individuals who may become “stateless.” Canada ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness on July 17, 1978. The following is taken from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) web site:

The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is the primary international legal instrument adopted to date to deal with the means of avoiding statelessness. The Convention provides for acquisition of nationality for those who would otherwise be stateless and who have an appropriate link with the State through factors of birth or descent. The issues of retention of nationality once acquired and transfer of territory are also addressed. The Convention does not address nationality issues within the jurisdiction of a State only, but also offers solutions to nationality problems which might arise between States. To this end, the principles outlined in the Convention have served as an effective framework within which to resolve conflicts concerning nationality.

Key provisions

Articles 1-4 of the Convention outline principles for the granting of nationality at birth to avoid future cases of statelessness.

Articles 5-7 of the Convention include regulation on the loss or renunciation of nationality and stipulate that loss/renunciation should be conditional upon the prior possession or assurance of acquiring another nationality. Articles 5 and 6 include principles of family unity in the light of avoidance of statelessness. In particular, Article 6 contains a provision of non- discrimination against family members as to the loss of nationality.

The issue of deprivation of nationality is dealt with in Articles 8-9. The basic principle is that no deprivation should take place if it will result in statelessness. Article 9 states that “A Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds.” Loss or deprivation of nationality may take place only in accordance with law and accompanied by full procedural guarantees, such as the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body.

Canada has not signed the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.4

It remains to be seen how Canada’s international law obligations and being a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness will mesh with the proposed changes to Canada’s Citizenship laws.

According to CIC’s 2012-2013 departmental performance evaluations, citizenship grants were way below target. Only 106,353 people were conferred citizenship despite plans to grant it to as many as 214,944 people. The reasons for the shortfall are increased scrutiny of residency fraud, a new tougher citizenship test and high Citizenship judge vacancy rates.

According to CIC citizenship application backlog stood at 349,249 at the end of 2012. The average processing time for a citizenship application was 25-35 months. In the last budget the government recognized backlogs were a problem and committed an additional $44 million over two years to speed up processing of citizenship applications. It is good that the government is addressing these unacceptable wait times.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander has set out his views on what the proposed new legislation on Canada Citizenship law might look like. The final text of the proposed Bill has not yet been presented to the Canadian Parliament. However, it is safe to bet that the changes will be significant and will further restrict access to Canadian Citizenship to Permanent Residents of Canada and perhaps also their Canadian born children. There are many Permanent residents in Canada who are presently eligible for Canadian Citizenship under the current rules. It would be prudent for these individuals to apply for Canadian Citizenship before the new law is passed.

December 31, 2013. [] “Update on Citizenship Processing, 21st Annual Immigration Law Summit Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, Ontario, November 26, 2013, prepared by Betsy Kane, “Statistics and insight courtesy of Richard Kurland, Editor in-Chief, Lexbase and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.” Unpublished paper at p. 7. [] “Is the next immigration fight over ‘anchor babies’?” Ed Hornick, CNN, April 28, 2011. See also “The Case for ‘Anchor Babies’ and Immigrant Integration,” Brendan Greeley, Bloomberg Business Week, November 5, 2013. [] See 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Signatory States, Declarations and Reservations (external link). [] Edward C. Corrigan is a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: corriganlaw@edcorrigan.ca. Read other articles by Edward, or visit Edward's website."

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   0:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: SOSO (#13)

Is the child a person?

Is it. The Consitution has a clear definition of citizen but no definition at all of person. So what do you use as the source for the definition of person?

The U.S. Supreme Court seems authoritative enough.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982)

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   1:28:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: SOSO (#14)

And the baby becomes the anchor to stay here for its parents, sibs not born here, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc............ 14A clearly creates anchor babies.

14A establishes no right of anyone but the baby to stay here. The Executive and Legislature do that all on their own. It does not take an Amendment to stop that or to deport the parents and others who are here illegally.

If we deported all the illegals in California, they might lose a few congressmen. Illegals count in the census for congressional representation.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   1:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: SOSO (#15)

How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14?

A whole bunch. It was the law in the colonies, and the states before and after the Constitution.

It is the law in all of North America and much of Central and South America. It was the law in much of Europe. And, of course, it was the law in all of the British colonies.

Many have changed their laws. 14A is set in the Constitution and has not changed.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   1:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: nolu chan (#18)

The U.S. Supreme Court seems authoritative enough.

Authoritavive yess, definitive no. An alien in your citation can be a child or an adult. All this says is that an alien is a person. Now you could argue that by extension if even an illegal alien child is a person a legal native child is also a person. The fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does not define person. However SCOTUS ruling on RvW deemed that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of A14. So if you can please cite the SCOTUS ruling that established that native child (or native adult for that matter) is a person.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   1:42:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: SOSO (#16)

The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

14A has not changed and it is our paramount law. A change might be a good idea, but it has not happened.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   1:42:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: nolu chan (#20)

ow many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14?

A whole bunch.

Yes, see post #16.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   1:43:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#19)

14A establishes no right of anyone but the baby to stay here. The Executive and Legislature do that all on their own. It does not take an Amendment to stop that or to deport the parents and others who are here illegally.

A distinction without much of a difference......see your comment below.

"If we deported all the illegals in California, they might lose a few congressmen. Illegals count in the census for congressional representation."

The last time I checked about 6 more Consgressmen as a result of all foreingers living in the state. Politicians pander to their base to get and stay elected. DRats will always make sure that their will be no change to the laws, policies or processes to deal with illegals other than de facto anmesity and further opening the borders to assure a growing voter base with an eventually unchallengable majority.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   12:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan (#22)

A change might be a good idea, but it has not happened.

I am well aware of that.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   12:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: SOSO (#24)

A distinction without much of a difference......see your comment below.

"If we deported all the illegals in California, they might lose a few congressmen. Illegals count in the census for congressional representation."

It is a big distinction. Illegal aliens are, and always have been, counted in the census, much as were slaves, but not at 60%. Also like slaves, they have no status. With no status, they are officially neither citizen nor alien, and they never become eligible for naturalization. They have no constitutional right to remain in the U.S., under 14A or any other provision. They remain here unlawfully, based on reasons other than the Constitution. None of those reasons requires a constitutional amendment to be extinguished.

It is likely that a significant majority, if not all, those added congressmen are Democrats.

DRats will always make sure that their will be no change to the laws, policies or processes to deal with illegals other than de facto anmesity and further opening the borders to assure a growing voter base with an eventually unchallengable majority.

I agree with your statement, but see no difference in the policies of the GOPe. The GOPe appears ready to have an exploding aneurysm over Donald Trump and his upfront statements on immigration. The GOPe would prefer amnesty for those that care here out of love, and open borders to spread the love without limit.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   15:06:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: nolu chan (#26)

Illegal aliens are, and always have been, counted in the census, much as were slaves, but not at 60%.

Were slaves considered persons under the pre-A14 Consitution? I do not believe so. I am not sure that women were consider persons either at that time.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   15:36:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: SOSO (#21)

Authoritavive yess, definitive no. An alien in your citation can be a child or an adult. All this says is that an alien is a person. Now you could argue that by extension if even an illegal alien child is a person a legal native child is also a person. The fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does not define person. However SCOTUS ruling on RvW deemed that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of A14. So if you can please cite the SCOTUS ruling that established that native child (or native adult for that matter) is a person.

Education can cure ignorance, but there is no cure for calculated stupidity.

For 14A, an alien may be a child or an adult. An alien is a person. All aliens are persons. An illegal alien is an alien. An undocumented immigrant is a person. A person in the United States unlawfully is a person. The U.S. Constitution does not define the words in the U.S. Constitution. The Courts define the words in the Constitution. The Courts construe the applicable meaning of the words as used in the Constitution. That is case law.

RvW ruled that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of 14A.

But note:

Unborn child. Word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 729, 35 L.Ed.2d 147. Unborn child is a "person" for purpose of remedies given for personal injuries, and child may sue after his birth. Weaks v. Mounter, 88 Nev. 118, 493 P.2d 1307, 1309. In some jurisdictions a viable fetus is considered a person within the meaning of the state's wrongful death statute, e.g. Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712, and within the meaning of the state's vehicular homicide statute, e.g. Comm. v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324.

For 14A, A child is a person. A native child is a person. A native adult is a person. An alien is a person. An adult alien is a person. A child alien is a person.

For 14A, Legitimate and illegitimate children are persons. Bastards are persons.

The unborn, the dead and the undead have not been held to be persons within the meaning of 14A.

The definition of person applicable to 14A covers from the basket almost to the casket. 14A does not expand to cover from the womb to the tomb, or from the erection to the resurrection.

A child is not a fetus for purposes of 14A. A child is a person. A person is a human being.

The Supreme Court does not need to define every word in the dictionary for that word to have a meaning.

Person. In general usage, a human being.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.

Aliens. Aliens are "persons" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment and are thus protected by equal protection clause against discriminatory state action.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.

As early as 1886, the Supreme Court held that aliens are "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and are thus protected by the Equal Protection Clause against discriminatory state action. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). That holding has been affirmed many times since and is no longer open to dispute. In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973); Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848,29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971); Takahashi v. Fish Game Commission, 334 U.S. 410, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 92 L.Ed. 1478 (1948).

Foley v. Connelie, S.D.N.Y., 419 F. Supp. 889, 891 (1976)

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   16:21:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nolu chan (#28)

Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.

So the Consitution states that a fetus is not a human being?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   19:40:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan (#28)

But note:

Unborn child. Word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 729, 35 L.Ed.2d 147. Unborn child is a "person" for purpose of remedies given for personal injuries, and child may sue after his birth. Weaks v. Mounter, 88 Nev. 118, 493 P.2d 1307, 1309. In some jurisdictions a viable fetus is considered a person within the meaning of the state's wrongful death statute, e.g. Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712, and within the meaning of the state's vehicular homicide statute, e.g. Comm. v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324.

Great example of stupidity, a nation that can't codify what a person is or isn't but leaves it to pariculars of a situation and/or location.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   22:03:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: SOSO (#29)

Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.

So the Consitution states that a fetus is not a human being?

If you say so.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   22:23:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: SOSO (#30)

Great example of stupidity, a nation that can't codify what a person is or isn't but leaves it to pariculars of a situation and/or location.

Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what a person is.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-28   22:29:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: nolu chan (#31)

Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.

So the Consitution states that a fetus is not a human being?

If you say so.

I didn't say so. You posted that in general usage a person in a human being. Since SCOTUS ruled that a fetus is not a person it follows that SCOTUS believes that a fetus is not a human. That or SCOTUS de facto ruled that all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

Our laws concerning what is or is not a person throughout the country and at the Fed leve,l or at least in their application, are absurd. If someone kills a pregnant women and the fetus dies as well whether there are two murders or just one depends on if it happened in State A instead of State B. But if a pregnant women is kidnapping and as a result the fetus dies according to the Fed no crime of murder or manslaughter was committed as according to the Fed the fetus is not a person or even a human being. Does this make sense to you?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   22:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#32)

Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what a person is.

Fixed it for you. "Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what legally a person is".

For all of your sarcasm the above statement is substantially correct. Certainly the morality of country is measured by such failure.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-28   22:48:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: nolu chan, All (#32)

Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what a person is.

Please explain the intelligence is this Alaskan law,.....if you can.

"Alaska

Alaska. Stat. § 11.41.150 et seq., § 11.81.250, § 12.55.035, and § 12.55.125 (2005) relate to offenses against unborn children. The law provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years. The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law.

Also, please explian if you can the untleeignece behind any of those laws that leaves the legal determination of whether a fetus is a person or human being solely to thr pregnant women.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-29   15:38:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: SOSO (#33)

I didn't say so. You posted that in general usage a person in a human being. Since SCOTUS ruled that a fetus is not a person it follows that SCOTUS believes that a fetus is not a human. That or SCOTUS de facto ruled that all persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons.

The court held that for purposes of the 14th Amendment, aliens are persons.

For purposes of the 14th Amendment, fetuses are not persons. Things not yet born are not persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.

In general usage, persons are human beings.

In general usage, aliens may be beings from outer space.

Our laws concerning what is or is not a person throughout the country and at the Fed leve,l or at least in their application, are absurd. If someone kills a pregnant women and the fetus dies as well whether there are two murders or just one depends on if it happened in State A instead of State B. But if a pregnant women is kidnapping and as a result the fetus dies according to the Fed no crime of murder or manslaughter was committed as according to the Fed the fetus is not a person or even a human being. Does this make sense to you?

Absurd laws are still laws. An example of a fetus law would be attempted fetal homicide. Barry Boyfriend is no longer happy with Polly Preggers. He knocks her down and forcefully kicks her in the gut with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of Polly Preggers. A cop, Peter Pigg sees it all and arrests Barry Boyfriend who is charged, convicted and imprisoned for attempted fetal homicide. While that prosecution is in progress, Polly Preggers goes to a Planned Parenthood clinic and elects to have the pregnancy terminated. Polly succeeds in doing what Barrry tried to do. Polly committed no crime and Barry is in prison.

In discussing what the law is, one can not wish a law into becoming something other than what it is. Accurately stating what a law is, and what its effect is, does not connote agreement with that law.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-29   20:53:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: SOSO (#34)

"Yes, the intelligence of nations is measured by their success of their codification of what a person is, with failure, as is evident in the United States, leaving some unable to figure out what legally a person is".

Some struggle more than others. Apparently SCOTUS never defined what the meaning of the word is is, resulting in Bill Clinton struggling with the meaning of the word is.

Nobody has ever worried about the immigration status of a fetus.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-29   20:58:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: SOSO (#35)

Also, please explian if you can the untleeignece behind any of those laws that leaves the legal determination of whether a fetus is a person or human being solely to thr pregnant women.

Per RvW, abortion is legal. Alaska wants to make a law criminalizing taking the life of a fetus. They carve out an exception for lawful abortion as otherwise their statute would be unconstitutional, mull and void, and of no effect.

The court determined the competing rights of the mother, the state, and the fetus at various stages of the pregnancy, and which was paramount at which time.

The Constitution makes clear reference to capital crimes. How can there be a capital punishment if all life is sacred?

On what theory is an atheist, pregnant by rape, subject to the paramount rights of the rapist, and forced by the authority of the government to carry the unwanted fetus of the rapist to term?

If activists did not support a claim of Federal jurisdiction on such matters, Alaska would be free to ban abortion and have no exception in its law. Of course, California would be free to have lawful abortion and some activists won't be happy until they can force their moral beliefs on California.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-29   21:15:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: nolu chan (#37)

Nobody has ever worried about the immigration status of a fetus.

Yet.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-29   23:08:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: nolu chan (#38)

How can there be a capital punishment if all life is sacred?

Easy, it's called due process.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-08-29   23:09:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 57) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com