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: 6595
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: SOSO (#13)
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)
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.
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.
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
14A has not changed and it is our paramount law. A change might be a good idea, but it has not happened.
A whole bunch. Yes, see post #16. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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
I am well aware of that. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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. 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.
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
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: 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. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. Foley v. Connelie, S.D.N.Y., 419 F. Supp. 889, 891 (1976)
So the Consitution states that a fetus is not a human being? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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
So the Consitution states that a fetus is not a human being? If you say so.
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.
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
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
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
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. 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.
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.
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.
Yet. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Easy, it's called due process. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Easy, it's called due process - abortion for these exceptions would certainly be a taking of a life but there are ample precedents for such a defense action. "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." It's not a matter of who would be happy or not, it's a matter of intelligence and morality. Science tells us that genetically a fetus is a human being but science has not told us when life beings. Absence a definitive scientific determination of when life beings the most intelligent, inculsive, compassionate, human thing to do (but not the progressive thing) is to make the law of the land that life begins at conception until proven otherwise. From there an intelligent, compassionate, human society would allow due process to estbalish the exceptions for taking that life (such as your rape case etc.). Religon doesn't enter into the equation. Nor does changes of mind of a pregnant women as to whether the fetus is a human being or not. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yet. 14A - All persons born....
Easy, it's called due process - abortion for these exceptions would certainly be a taking of a life but there are ample precedents for such a defense action. Actually, it is a matter of law, not process. It's not a matter of who would be happy or not, it's a matter of intelligence and morality. Science tells us that genetically a fetus is a human being but science has not told us when life beings. How does the morality of killing/terminating a fetus depend on the circumstances under which the divine creation of life was created? As a moral question, I do not see how any exceptions make sense. If life is sacred, a divine creation with a divine soul, then all such life would seem to be equally defended by a moral argument. We do not have moral courts. We have courts of law. For obvious reasons, the congress is not well suited to determining moral questions and imposing a chosen morality on all others. I believe that legislatively and judicially, it is best kept at the lowest level possible with each political community able to live according to its own standard.
Easy, it's called due process. Constitutional law provides for capital punishment. Due process, in this case adherence to criminal procedures, does not explain capital punishment as wirtten into the Constitution if the Framers meant to incorporate a belief that all life was sacred into the organic law. The Constitution does not require any State to incorporate capital punishment, but it prevents any legal argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional. It is available to the Federal government and any State that chooses to adopt it by its laws. The Constitution does not consider the moral question. It leaves that to the States.
Does not God distinquish the taking a life in self-defense or in the protection of one's family and not condemn those that do. Are all soldiers cursed by God for going to war and killing the enemy? Are cops that kill to protect their and/or other life condemned in God's eyes? Certainly the government of men make such allowance and do so through due process of law. Any taking of life is a killing but not all taking is murder and therefore not a secular crime as determined by the establishment of criteria via the due process of law. We will only find out what God truly holds as His law on this subject on judgment day. "I believe that legislatively and judicially, it is best kept at the lowest level possible with each political community able to live according to its own standard." And in the case of an unprotected, defenseless fetus that would be the Federal level not the states that come up with 50 different determinations of if, when and how a fetus may be murdered. Just as the Fed outlaws slavery and will not let any state engage in that practice, the Fed must mandate the definition of personhood and not let any state deviate from that determination. As things stand, the Fed most definitely made at least a parial determination when SCOTUS determined that for the purpose of 14A a fetus is not a person. But even that determination is incomplete because of that incredibilty stupid concept of viability. How much longer will this society dance around the question and promulgate an inane patchwork of laws to avoid dealing with the real issue? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
How is the woman impregnated by a rapist, in obtaining an abortion, taking a life in self-defense or in the protection of her family? Assume neither her physical health nor life are threatened. Do you seriously suggest the fetus is better defended now than if pro-life states were able to make up their own mind? Or, do you assume, contrary to all known facts, that the Federal government is the best place as it can decide everybody's rights, or lack thereof. The real issue is whether to permit the courts to usurp that authority, or to leave it with the states. Forcing the moral determinations of California on Texas, or vice versa, is not a solution to a problem. It is just a different problem. Each state minding its own damn business is a better solution.
Assume neither her physical health nor life are threatened. Really? You can figure this out for yourself. If not, find someone to help you out. "Do you seriously suggest the fetus is better defended now than if pro-life states were able to make up their own mind?" I made no such claim but it should be obvious to you that I don't. As far as I recall all personhood amendments failed at the ballot boxes. If the Fed made that the law of the land the states could not skirt it. The current circumstances of insignificant nibbling around the edge by just some states is practically meaningless in the real world. "The real issue is whether to permit the courts to usurp that authority, or to leave it with the states. Forcing the moral determinations of California on Texas, or vice versa, is not a solution to a problem. It is just a different problem. Each state minding its own damn business is a better solution." So you are just fine if some states reimpose slavery and/or deny women the right to vote? Okey Dokey. Your presecription for a better society is to get the Fed out of every aspect of human interaction, no exceptions? In your world the Fed should allow every form of discrimination and unequal application and/or enforcement of what is currently the law. Hell, let's just tear up the Bill of RIghts and let each state subsitute its own version thereof, if any at all. Wow!! потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Assume neither her physical health nor life are threatened. Not answered. I made no such claim but it should be obvious to you that I don't. Yes, you did. And in the case of an unprotected, defenseless fetus that would be the Federal level not the states that come up with 50 different determinations of if, when and how a fetus may be murdered. It was decided at the Federal level by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. How have the last 42 years worked for your professed belief that the best level is the Federal level. Any personhood amendments to State constitutions are certain to be held repugnant to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, null and void, and of no legal force whatsoever. You want the Federal authority to control, you got it. 14A applies to "persons born. A fetus is not a "person born." Perhaps SCOTUS needs to define the word born as 14A did not. That as dumb as states passing personhood laws to thwart the U.S. Constitution as defined by SCOTUS. The 13th and 19th Amendments appear clear enough that not even birthers can deny what they say. If that is what you want though, you can always hope. No, to get it out of areas where the people did not delegate it authority to meddle. Here is your Federal solution. What are you complaining about? http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep410&id=225#225 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973) As long as you support Roe and its reasoning, quit complaining. It has been the law for 42 years, untouchable by the states. As you say, this is where the mattter should be determined, and it has been decided for the past 42 years, don't worry, be happy.
How is the woman impregnated by a rapist, in obtaining an abortion, taking a life in self-defense or in the protection of her family? Assume neither her physical health nor life are threatened. Not answered. OK, I guess you really need one. Think phsychology impact on the raped women if she is forced to carry a child to term for which she had no participation in its conception other by violent force against her. I think you can fill in the rest. As things stand, the Fed most definitely made at least a parial determination when SCOTUS determined that for the purpose of 14A a fetus is not a person. 14A applies to "persons born. A fetus is not a "person born." Thank you for repeating what I said. "So you are just fine if some states reimpose slavery and/or deny women the right to vote? Okey Dokey. That as dumb as states passing personhood laws to thwart the U.S. Constitution as defined by SCOTUS." Thank you for agreeing with me. "As long as you support Roe and its reasoning, quit complaining." Yo, Lance, where have you been? I do not support the RvW decision. That should be abundantly obvious to you. RvW should be modified if not reversed to grant personhood to a fetus and then let Due Process take over from there to determine what exceptions to allow the killing of a fetus are to be made. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
OK, for the mental health of the mother, it is morally justified to terminate the fetus. Now I do not know what you have been complaining about. That is straight out of Roe v. Wade. If you agree with Roe, At #35, you asked, For the mental health of the mother, per Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 133, 153 (1973), and per SOSO #35. Do you have any other moral justifications to terminate a fetus that you would like to point out? Do you agree with all of the legal justifications pointed out in Roe as also being moral justifications? SOSO: "Think phsychology impact on the raped women if she is forced to carry a child to term" Roe at 153 "Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent." Try reading Roe before saying you disagree with it, after making a statement that you explicitly agree with it when asked to provide an example of moral justification. - - - - - - - - - - Light shines on marble head! A fetus is not a "person born" and therefore has nothing to do with the 14A about "All persons born." You apparently just like to say the word fetus and 14A together. Thank you for agreeing with me. Thank you for agreeing that what you said was dumb, as state personhood laws are unconstitutional. A reversal of RvW to grant fetal personhood cannot be justified based on 14A which pertains to All persons born. Even with a legislative personhood law, that little unborn person would not fall under the All persons born of 14A. RvW is grounded, in part, the 14A right to privacy. What right to privacy do you attribute to the fetus?
Light shines on marble head! A fetus is not a "person born" Well, it took you long enough to see the light, welcome aboard. SCOTUS then doubles back on itself by included a most ridiculous notion of viability as to seem to change its mind about the personhood of a mature fetus. Riiiiiight.......................................... "A reversal of RvW to grant fetal personhood cannot be justified based on 14A which pertains to All persons born." Who said that is was justified on A14? A14 states that specifically identified persons born are citizens, it does not deal with personhood. We are talking about RvW itself which determined that a fetus is not a person and therefore is not entitled to equal protection and due process and everything else a person is entitled to under the Consitution. The problem is not with A14 but with what SCOTUS decided in RvW. Did you evey read A14? Here's what is says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A14 clearly distinguishes by its own wording between a citizen and a person. It refers to both in a manner that makes it crystal clear that the words do not mean the same thing(s) nor universally apply to the same category of human beings. So by denying a fetus the status of person per RvW SCOTUS deemed that a fetus is not a human being. But science clearly tells us exactly the opposite. RvW is so f*cked up in so many ways that only the intellectually bankrupt can support it. Adding to the bankruptcy is the insistence that the Fed stay "out of the bedroom" when in fact the Fed did enter the bedroom on the side of the woman and the detriment of the fetus in deciding RvW. What they really are saying to the Fed is keep your RvW intrusion in place and continue to give Federal cover to killing babies on demand because you, SCOTUS, determined that a fetus is not a person, not even a human being - and don't let any state get around your decision. Can you imgaine what the pro-choicers would do or how they would react if SCOTUS deemed that a fetus is a person, is a human being and is entitled to everything a person is entitled to under the Constitution? No need to change A14 because when that person, that human being, is born under the conditions stated in A14 that person also becomes a citizen. Thus all will be right with the world (except for the pro-choicers who will continue to endeavor to find ways to indiscriminately kill unborn citizens on demand and without cause). потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I enjoyed your entire post. Here is how you could kill abortion. It would involve the claim that "gay" babies are being aborted. Someone should open an abortion business that only aborts "gay babies". Or at least specializes in it. Then you can split the democraps and make the fags fight the baby killers.
How does one determine that a fetus is gay?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You can't really. But they think that they are born that way. So someone just has to claim they are doing that. Or that they are going to start doing that.
That certainly would be fun to watch a few progressive heads explode. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It's not a person until it is born. There's no confusion except in your mind. There is no Article 14. But, in case you missed it, the thread article is about 14A, the Fourteenth Amendment. If you mean to say your comment does not pertain to the thread, that's ok, I understand the difficulties you are having. For a reminder of your diversionary nonsense into the weeds of irrelevancy, a return to your feigned ignorance of what a person is. 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? And it is irrelevant to birthright citizenship whether the fetus is declared a person or not. It is relevant to a right of abortion. The right of abortion is somewhere, but it is not in the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. That explicitly pertains to "All persons born." It does not include the dead, the undead, or the unborn. There is no Article 14. This thread is about birthright citizenship and the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 14A. Unfortunately, you seem to be lost in the weeds. 14A states the citizenship clause at issue: Privileges and immunities of citizens, due process, and equal protection, are the subject of other clauses, and perhaps, other threads. Fetuses are not involved in determining the birthright citizenship of a child. Why you insist upon injecting this irrelevancy into a thread about birthright citizenship is your problem.
I guess it's hard for you to maintain two thoughts in your head at the same time. I will keep that in mind going forward.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Is the child a person?
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.
#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.
#20. To: SOSO (#15)
How many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14?
#21. To: nolu chan (#18)
The U.S. Supreme Court seems authoritative enough.
#22. To: SOSO (#16)
The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:
#23. To: nolu chan (#20)
ow many other countries, past and present, grant citizenship to anyone born in their country a la A14?
#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.
#25. To: nolu chan (#22)
A change might be a good idea, but it has not happened.
#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."
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.
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
Illegal aliens are, and always have been, counted in the census, much as were slaves, but not at 60%.
#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.
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.
Person. In general usage, a human being.
Aliens. Aliens are "persons" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment and are thus protected by equal protection clause against discriminatory state action.
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).
#29. To: nolu chan (#28)
Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
#30. To: nolu chan (#28)
But note:
#31. To: SOSO (#29)
Person. In general usage, a human being. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
#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.
#33. To: nolu chan (#31)
#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.
#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.
#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.
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?
#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".
#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.
#39. To: nolu chan (#37)
Nobody has ever worried about the immigration status of a fetus.
#40. To: nolu chan (#38)
How can there be a capital punishment if all life is sacred?
#41. To: nolu chan (#38)
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?
#42. To: SOSO (#39)
Nobody has ever worried about the immigration status of a fetus.
#43. To: SOSO (#41)
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."
#44. To: SOSO (#40)
How can there be a capital punishment if all life is sacred?
#45. To: nolu chan (#43)
If life is sacred, a divine creation with a divine soul, then all such life would seem to be equally defended by a moral argument.
#46. To: SOSO (#45)
Does not God distinquish the taking a life in self-defense or in the protection of one's family and not condemn those that do.
And in the case of an unprotected, defenseless fetus that would be the Federal level not the states that come up with 50 different determinations of if, when and how a fetus may be murdered. Just as the Fed outlaws slavery and will not let any state engage in that practice, the Fed must mandate the definition of personhood and not let any state deviate from that determination. As things stand, the Fed mo
#47. To: nolu chan (#46)
How is the woman impregnated by a rapist, in obtaining an abortion, taking a life in self-defense or in the protection of her family?
#48. To: SOSO (#47)
How is the woman impregnated by a rapist, in obtaining an abortion, taking a life in self-defense or in the protection of her family?
"Do you seriously suggest the fetus is better defended now than if pro-life states were able to make up their own mind?"
I believe that legislatively and judicially, it is best kept at the lowest level possible with each political community able to live according to its own standard."
As far as I recall all personhood amendments failed at the ballot boxes. If the Fed made that the law of the land the states could not skirt it.
As things stand, the Fed most definitely made at least a parial determination when SCOTUS determined that for the purpose of 14A a fetus is not a person.
So you are just fine if some states reimpose slavery and/or deny women the right to vote? Okey Dokey.
Your presecription for a better society is to get the Fed out of every aspect of human interaction, no exceptions?
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
#49. To: nolu chan (#48)
#50. To: SOSO (#49)
OK, I guess you really need one. Think phsychology impact on the raped women if she is forced to carry a child to term for which she had no participation in its conception other by violent force against her. I think you can fill in the rest.
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.
Yo, Lance, where have you been? I do not support the RvW decision.
As things stand, the Fed most definitely made at least a parial determination when SCOTUS determined that for the purpose of 14A a fetus is not a person.
"So you are just fine if some states reimpose slavery and/or deny women the right to vote? Okey Dokey. That as dumb as states passing personhood laws to thwart the U.S. Constitution as defined by SCOTUS."
RvW should be modified if not reversed to grant personhood to a fetus
#51. To: nolu chan (#50)
As things stand, the Fed most definitely made at least a parial determination when SCOTUS determined that for the purpose of 14A a fetus is not a person.
#52. To: SOSO (#51)
A14 clearly distinguishes by its own wording between a citizen and a person. It refers to both in a manner that makes it crystal clear that the words do not mean the same thing(s) nor universally apply to the same category of human beings.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#52)
#54. To: SOSO (#53)
How does one determine that a fetus is gay?
#55. To: A K A Stone (#54)
You can't really. But they think that they are born that way. So someone just has to claim they are doing that. Or that they are going to start doing that.
#56. To: SOSO (#51)
Well, it took you long enough to see the light, welcome aboard. SCOTUS then doubles back on itself by included a most ridiculous notion of viability as to seem to change its mind about the personhood of a mature fetus. Riiiiiight..........................................
Who said that is was justified on A14?
A14 states that specifically identified persons born are citizens, it does not deal with personhood. We are talking about RvW itself which determined that a fetus is not a person and therefore is not entitled to equal protection and due process and everything else a person is entitled to under the Consitution. The problem is not with A14 but with what SCOTUS decided in RvW.
#13. To: nolu chan (#2)
Is the child a person?
Did you evey read A14?
Ann Coulter: Correcting Bill O’Reilly (Again!) On “Birthright” Citizenship And The Constitution
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.
#57. To: nolu chan (#56)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]