You don’t have to agree with “me”. What you should agree with is the “truth”. Set personal emotions aside and comprehend…if you want the Constitution followed…THEN FOLLOW IT. ALL OF IT. You don’t pick and choose which aspects are to be followed and which are to be ignored based on personal feelings.
2 Likes
No one is buying what you are selling.
Birthright citizenship is a thing.
What is gained by railing against it?
1 Like
You will have to ask Napolitano on that. No one here can answer that, no matter how many times you ask the question.
He’s a shock jock of a judge
1 Like
I guess we have to accept there will always be those who are willing to cheat, when the game does not go their way.
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
You are a very confused person. We are here talking about what our United States Supreme Court has stated. Are you rejecting its findings which follows?
our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”
“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.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.
And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:
“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.”
The truth is our S.C. isn’t buying the type of ■■■■■■■■ which Andrew Napolitano and you are selling.
JWK
When violent hate America demonstrations and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.
The entire country has rejected what you are saying.
1 Like
We are talking about what our Supreme Court has stated with regard to acquiring United States citizenship. Do you agree with what our S.C. stated, regarding that issue?
our Supreme Court stated in “Slaughter-House Cases”
“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.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. And this is one reason why we have a National Oath of Allegience to the United States . . . so, children born to naturalized citizens, become citizens upon birth.
And let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-2 (1884) regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:
“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.”
JWK
Schumer and his hate America crowd have turned New York City into a crime, rat, garbage and homeless infested ■■■■ hole.
No one buys your weird interpretation of things.
I am more interested in why you think the status quo should be overturned.
What do you think is actually gained from it?
2 Likes
There certainly are varying opinions about what constitutional “construction” consists of. And many of those opinions subtly encourage an adherence to the Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
And then there is our Seventh Amendment acknowledging an adherence “… to the rules of the common law.”
And one of the long standing rules under “… the rules of the common law …” , is to enforce our Constitution’s “legislative intent”.
In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.”
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”
This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”
The bottom line is, Napolitano is pretty good on constitutional issues, but when advancing his personal libertarian beliefs, he has no problem applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and has ignored an adherence to the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. And I think that is a bad reflection on NEWSMAX, and he should be called out on that.
Now, back to my question. Do you support what our Supreme Court has stated with regard to acquiring United States citizenship?
JWK
It was absolutely disgusting to see Schumer and his hate American cabal in the Senate voting to keep the border open, and millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals flowing across our border.
None of that wall of text answered the question that I posed to you.
1 Like
In what way is a person born in the United States possibly not “subject to to the jurisdiction thereof” at birth?
You just quoted it above. Read what has been bolded, stated by the S.C.
Why is that earlier decision superceding of the later Wong Kim Ark decision?
What’s the importance to you to argue against birthright citizenship which has existed in this country for over 120 years?
2 Likes
They have passports, can vote, can sit on a jury. No matter what @johnwk2 says or posts they are citizens.
1 Like
Once again you show your ignorance concerning the issue, or you are intentionally gaslighting, again.
Wong Kim Ark is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.
The factors involved which led to the court’s opinion in Wong were:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :
For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges’ mind met the qualifying criteria, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
JWK
Schumer and his hate America crowd have turned New York City into a crime, rat, garbage and homeless infested ■■■■ hole.
That decision made no such distinction.
Why is it so important to you to overturn the status quo of birthright citizenship?
1 Like
Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not illegal entrant foreign nationals which is confirmed in the case.
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 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.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898)
Stop making ■■■■ up and gaslighting.
The legality of their status was not a consideration in that decision.
Ark was being denied entry because of the Chinese Exclusion Act which was passed nearly a decade after his birth.
There wasn’t any determination between legal and non legal status of his parents, because the act that excluded them didn’t exist yet.
So that argument is silly on your part.
I still am curious as to why this is a particular bugaboo of yours.
Why is overturning 120 years of birthright citizenship so important to you?
And yet, the court’s decision was based on specific facts:
(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :
For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges’ mind met the qualifying criteria, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Suggesting that Wong Kim Ark applies to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national, AS YOU DID is totall made-up ■■■■ and unsupported by the decision.
Rub you gaslighting on your chest and spend some of your time in a more productive fashion, such as helping to clean up NYC which has been turned into a crime, rat, garbage and homeless infested ■■■■ hole.
JWK
When violent hate America demonstrations and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.
