New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Birthright citizenship in the United States
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth ... tizenship_in_the_United_States
Published: Nov 1, 2018
Author: Food for thought
Post Date: 2018-11-01 11:52:43 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 9239
Comments: 80
Current U.S. law Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States Constitution. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "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."[10] Statute, by birth within U.S. United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: " Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians. John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause.[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha. The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. The United States Congress later enacted The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the US Constitution; however no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed the majority opinion offered on Elk v. Wilkins including the detailed definitions of the terms of the 14th Amendment as written by Justice Gray. The Elk v. Wilkins opinion remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment, but has been rendered undebatable for its application to native Indians due to the Act of Congress. Indian Citizenship Act The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I.
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or "
a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924). "
a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States" "
a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Justified, vicomte13 (#0)
This should be a slam dunk case for the Supreme court. It would be if only Vic wasn't going around raising rats like Ginsburg from the dead.
God raised a mouse from the dead. I was merely present. Not sure what that has to do with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The text of the 14th Amendment is clear, and it applies here. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I expect an 8-1 ruling that Birthright Citizenship is what the 14th Amendment says. Thomas will say no. Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh will all agree with me. Not sure about Gorsuch, maybe 7-2. This fight is not going to be won like this. We have to patrol the border and wall it, and enforce existing law to stop illegal immigration. Messing around with the Constitution's plain words is not going to fly - the court, 7-2 at worst, and maybe 9-0, will say that the 14th Amendment's plain English bestows birthright citizenship on illegal aliens, because it does.
No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction. That is a fact proven by the easy to understand words and the words of the people who wrote the fourteenth amendment. Which has the force of law but truthfully was never lawfully ratified.
Please cite your source.
The South was readmitted to the union. They passed the 13th. They wouldn't pass the 14th. Do some research on it if you want to.
If you play the game of legislative history, you will sink into the quicksand of the Left. The states ratified language, not legislative history. The Congress ratified language, not the opinions of individual legislators. Our law is, and ought to be, based on the language ratified, not based on the opinion of some individual in Congress as to what he wanted the language to mean. Congress didn't ratify him, and neither did they states. Only the language. The disaster in what you're doing here you don't realize, because you're not a lawyer and have not studied it. The LEFT, not the Right, has used the appeal to legislative history as the basis to make so many of the decisions that you hate. The Right has clamored for years to apply the text as written. It has been the Left wing judges who have pulled down the Congressional record and found the various things that this liberal Congressman or that liberal Senator said in a speech or wrote and had entered into the record, and clamored just as you are: "SEE, Congress INTENDED thus and so." Democratic Congressman lard up the Congressional record with statetments and speeches and notes that state their OPINION about the law, and those MERE OPINIONS are then cited by Left wing justices to override the clear language of statutes and allow the Left wing justices to make whatever law they please, because "legislative history" shows the "intent" of Congress. But it DOESN'T. It shows the OPINION of ONE MAN whose opinion was recorded. Congress didn't vote on that man's opinion, it voted only on the language that it passed. And we all know that Representatives and Senators vote on each bill for their own reasons. It's a tactic of the LEFT to record opinions of individual legislators, and then have judges pull out those opinions and claim that those individual opinions were the intent of Congress. The Right has always resisted that, insisting that what the statute says is the law. Now, to try to get an easy win on immigration (that you will not get, because the Supreme Court will never agree with that horse-shit argument), you're ready to throw away 80 years of principles conservative resistance to allowing the opinions of individual politicians to be used by liberal judges to steamroller the language of statutes. It's a terrible tactical choice, because it will not prevail before the justices of the Supreme Court. Strategically, it's a disaster, because it concedes that the Left was always right in taking the opinions of some politicians, rammed into the record, and making that what the Constitution "means". "Subject to jurisdiction" means: can the courts try you. Diplomats? No immune. So their kids aren't citizens. Indians on reservation? No. Illegals? Yes. Their kids are citizens. If you've got to do Pickett's Charge into the guns, the Charge of the Light Brigade, just remember how that ended up for Pickett's Divison and the Light Brigade. With the Light Brigade, the only reason any of them survived was because a French battery of guns on an adjacent hill saw what was happening and disobeyed orders to engage the Russians in direct counterbattery fire, giving the surviving Brits the chance to escape with their lives. That's me: the French battery on the hill watching this disaster unfold, and trying to give you the cover to get out before you charge into the guns to your doom. You cannot win this fight on this grounds. It won't work. And if it DOES work, you will have given away the farm to get an apple.
No subject to jurisdiction means if they are Americans. If they were trying to legalize foreigners they would have just left it at born here. They wouldnt have had to add the "and...". Also like I said the legislators gave their reasons and they spoke in truth.
Always interesting how none of (D)rumpf's cult members can articulate the moral first principles that differentiated America from "shyteholes" like... ...the one the (current) wife of the Toad Warrior was raised in by a card- carrying member of the Soviet Communist Party. { shrug } Maybe Baron SHOULD be deported?
What jurisdiction was claimed to prosecute the killer of Kate Steinle; said killer being a bona fide illegal alien? The 14th Amendment speaks to the status of the newborn child, without respect to the parents of the child. The status of the newborn child is not affected by the parents being legal or illegal aliens. The child, at the time of birth, is in the United States and has never been anywhere else. The child is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless he or she is the child of persons such as officially recognized foreign diplomats or visiting royalty who enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction. The ratified words of the 14th Amendment are controlling. This was just a pre-election Trump troll. Congress: You are a usurper. That's the job of Congress. Trump: OK, do your job. As long as the Democrats are talking about Trump, they are not getting out any message of their own. A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against. The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided.
If they said all persons born on the United States you would be correct. I respectfully disagree with you.
My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.
Exactly. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 699 (1898), Gray J. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290; 318-319, Peckham J. There is, too, a general acquiescence in the doctrine that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 91 U. S. 79; Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 44 U. S. 24, Taney, Chief Justice; Mitchell v. Manufacturing Co., 2 Story 648, 653; Queen v. Hertford College, 3 Q.B.D. 693, 707. The reason is that it is impossible to determine with certainty what construction was put upon an act by the members of a legislative body that passed it by resorting to the speeches of individual members thereof. Those who did not speak may not have agreed with those who did, and those who spoke might differ from each other, the result being that the only proper way to construe a legislative act is from the language used in the act, and, upon occasion, by a resort to the history of the times when it was passed. (Cases cited supra.) United States v. St. Paul, M. & MR Co., 247 US 310, 318 (1918), Pitney, J. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 474 (1921), Pitney J. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 US 281, 311 (1979), Rehnquist, J. Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845), Taney CJ We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history. And the present case nicely proves that point. Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends.
Okay some courts offered some opinions but that's all they are is opinions. There's good points in those opinions ill admit that. The opinions expressed during those debates match the language in my opinion. It's absurd to think that they were talking about foreigners invading us
The Constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." The plain meaning of the words is clear.
My take is Trump has no desire to get slam dunked by SCOTUS. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/31/trump-congress-path-end-birthright-citizenship/ By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 31, 2018 President Trump said Wednesday he’s still committed to ending birthright citizenship for babies born to immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, but would prefer to go through Congress rather than use an executive order. That’s a softening of his stance from an interview published Tuesday, where he told Axios, an online political outlet, that he was preparing an executive order to test the boundaries of the Constitution’s definitions of automatic citizenship. [snip]
FALSE. They can be expelled. If Kate Steinle's killer had been a recognized diplomat, with diplomatic immunity, he could have been decertified, declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country, but he could not have been prosecuted.
Mexicans arent our subjects. I honestly see it different no spin here.
If they can be expelled they are subject to our jurisdiction at the time they are here. We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.
I agree. To stop the illegal alien invasion we have to spend the money and the effort to wall and patrol the Border, and to patrol the workforce and punish businesses that hire illegals. The easy end-run won't work. Trump has started the conversation, and will move on immigration after the election - maybe even move for a constitutional amendment. (Probably not.) He can police the border, put the army there, throw up a wall, and heavily enforce border security. He's not going to be able to erase birth right citizenship.
He might well do that. The decision will be either 9-0, 8-1 or maybe 7-2 against him. Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh will never go along with Trump on this one. Can't say for Gorsuch. Thomas might. But I have not observed Trump doing futile gestures. He doesn't like to lose, and he will lose this one, so I agree with Nolu Chan that he won't do it.
Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.
No, that's been a principle of international law, in the West anyway, since the Age of Reason at least, maybe before that.
It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment. And they're all Catholics to boot, just not likely to lie in this particular way on this particular issue. It's not vain imagining on my part, it is reasoned speculation from fact. Do you know what lawyers get paid to do? This. We look at precedent. We look at the fact pattern. To the extent we can know it, we look at the judicial history of the judge or judges who will be deciding the case. We look at the language itself. And we come to a reasoned opinion as to what will probably happen in a particular case. Our clients pay us to speculate as to what WILL happen, based on what HAS happened, what the words say, and who the judges are. That is the very essence of legal advice and the legal opinions for which clients pay tens of thousands of dollars. The future is unknown, but the PROBABLE future is knowable by studying those things. I've made my living doing just exactly this: speculating, based on the facts, on what will happen in court and how courts will apply laws to a particular fact set. When it comes to this sort of thing - not predicting elections, but predicting appellate decisions, I have very rarely been wrong. Obviously I have not fully researched this speculation here, but I have kept up on it over the years, and read a great deal of the argumentation. I'm professionally certain that there is no possibility whatsoever that the Supreme Court would uphold an assertion by the President that birth right citizenship does not inhere in anchor babies. I am morally certain that, were I hired to opine on the subject, my formal research on the subject would produce precisely that result, and that my bill, probably something on the order of $12,000, would not be paid in vain by the President were he to pay it. This one is not a close case. It's self-evidently obvious on the language of the statute.
If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.
Better more skilled more knowledgeable lawyers disagree with you. Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders and that Muslim cunt who organized the pussy march all agree with you. You're wrong, i'm right. It is a fact.
The words of the 14th Amendment say nothing whatever about former slaves. Not a word. They will read the language that says "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." They will comment that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: the are subject to the laws and are tried in our courts (unlike diplomats, or reservation Indians in that day, or foreign troops occupying parts of US soil in war). And that will be that: they will uphold the 14th Amendment by striking down Trump. At least 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices, and probably 9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.
They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here. Have a good day.
In your imagination they will do that.
There are not many of those. I graduated from top law schools in the US and France, easily passed the bar in two states, worked in the top firms, and have always been very successful in this profession. Go find federal judges or law partners of white shoe firms who agree with you. Now I'm hoping Trump does sign that Executive Order. Since it seems to be an open question, let's close that question. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, at least, along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will all agree with me. Thomas and Gorsuch might agree with you. But I doubt even that.
They are illegally here, and we can arrest them and try them in our courts for being so and breaking our laws. If the court can try you, you are subject to its jurisdiction. That's what "subject to jurisdiction" MEANS: it MEANS that the court has the legal power to try you.
Right now, it's in everybody's imagination that Trump will sign such an EO. Once he does, the lower courts will swiftly block it. It will be appealed to the Supremes. I predict a 9-0 opinion. It's not a close case.
We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th. Wrong on all counts. Persons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction. If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him. The United States government could advise his government that his recognition as a diplomat was being withdrawn and he had to leave by a specified date. Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries. Internationally, persons allowed in as diplomats cannot be detained or tried for alleged crimes if they enjoy a grant of immunity.
Sure they are. We can expel them from this country. So it is within our right to do that. We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.
Ok you and Vic taught me that one. I'll give you that.
If you read the constitution about equal protection. If that was followed to a T. Diplomatic immunity would be unconstitutional.
What Mexican are you talking about??? The 14th Applies to infant children born in the United States. If the child does not enjoy immunity from our laws, the child is a natural born United States citizen. The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.
nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Those don't jive with each other. How would Kate receive equal protection. She couldn't have. If the words meant what they said there would be no diplomatic immunity without repealing the 14th.
Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans. Americans who have babies are Americans. It is really that simple. I disagree with you. I always will. There is no changing my mind on this one. None of us is going to decide this. We will just have to wait and see. I do respect your opinions though unlike some others here. I respect Vics as well. I just don't agree. Other constitutional experts also agree with me. As others agree with you.
This is emphatically incorrect. The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress. The common law rule of jus soli already existed in the United States, since day 1, and the 14th Amendment did not change that.
Which Senator stated that?
Comments (42 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
It would be if only Vic wasn't going around raising rats like Ginsburg from the dead.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
truthfully was never lawfully ratified.
#5. To: Jameson (#4)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction. That is a fact proven by the easy to understand words and the words of the people who wrote the fourteenth amendment. Which has the force of law but truthfully was never lawfully ratified.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Subject to jurisdiction" means: can the courts try you. Diplomats? No immune. So their kids aren't citizens. Indians on reservation? No. Illegals? Yes. Their kids are citizens.
#8. To: Justified (#0)
#9. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#3)
No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction.
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.
Trump: I can eliminate birthright citizenship by Executive Order.
#10. To: nolu chan (#9)
#11. To: nolu chan (#9)
(Edited)
#12. To: nolu chan, vicomte13 (#9)
Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.
#13. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#6)
The states ratified language, not legislative history. The Congress ratified language, not the opinions of individual legislators.
Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 254 (1901), Brown J. The arguments of individual legislators are no proper subject for judicial comment. They are so often influenced by personal or political considerations, or by the assumed necessities of the situation, that they can hardly be considered even as the deliberate views of the persons who make them, much less as dictating the construction to be put upon the Constitution by the courts.
Looking simply at the history of the bill from the time it was introduced in the Senate until it was finally passed, it would be impossible to say what were the views of a majority of the members of each House in relation to the meaning of the Act. It cannot be said that a majority of both houses did not agree with Senator Hoar in his views as to the construction to be given to the Act as it passed the Senate. All that can be determined from the debates and reports is that various members had various views, and we are left to determine the meaning of this act, as we determine the meaning of other acts. from the language used therein.
It is not our purpose to relax the rule that debates in Congress are not appropriate or even reliable guides to the meaning of the language of an enactment.
By repeated decisions of this court, it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the lawmaking body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 44 U. S. 24; United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 91 U. S. 79; United States v. Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290, 166 U. S. 318.
The remarks of a single legislator, even the sponsor, are not controlling in analyzing legislative history. Congressman Moss' statement must be considered with the Reports of both Houses and the statements of other Congressmen…
In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.
Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (1993), Scalia, J., concurring The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy.
#14. To: nolu chan (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#10)
If they said all persons born on the United States you would be correct. I respectfully disagree with you.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)
My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.
Trump backs off executive order threat, says Congress is better path to end birthright citizenship
#17. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#12)
Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.
#18. To: nolu chan (#15)
#19. To: nolu chan (#17)
#20. To: nolu chan (#9)
A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against. The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh will never go along with Trump on this one.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#26)
Better more skilled more knowledgeable lawyers disagree with you.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#29)
In your imagination they will do that.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#19)
If they can be expelled they are subject to our jurisdiction at the time they are here.
#34. To: nolu chan (#33)
ersons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction.
#35. To: nolu chan (#33)
Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Mexicans arent our subjects.
#38. To: nolu chan (#33)
If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him.
#39. To: nolu chan (#37)
The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.
#40. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#25)
If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 14[t]h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.
#41. To: nolu chan (#40)
The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]