The "national emergency" in the context of Constitutional Governance


#459

I think you’ve nailed it here. Good post.


#460

Why is that?


#461

:rofl: and you were doing so well.


#462

Early Madison and Jefferson or later?


#463

Good post. I don’t agree with all of it, but respect.


#464

Multiple reasons.

First, the Constitution (this applies to statutes as well, if not more so) is not the product of a single intent. It is the work of many people, each with their own intentions, desires and opinions - often at odds with each other. Constitutional, as well as statutory language is the language of compromise between differing intentions.

Second, we don’t have a time machine - we can’t go back and ask them what they meant. You can attempt to divine the intention by reading debates and discussions - but that just becomes a battle of selective quoting. An example of this is apparent in the birthright citizenship thread - where multiple posters on both sides of the issue have quoted the same Senator to argue for their side.


#465

Thanks. I’d rather not defend ‘rogue or seditious’ elements in the bureaucracy here.


#466

Great post, thank you.

Battling quotes, while true, sort of ignores the ratification papers and excuses the lack of an anchor.

But respect.


#467

I don’t blame you.


#468

But the preponderance of the evidence establishes that a child born to a foreign national while on American soil is not bestowed citizenship upon birth.

JWK


#469

:rofl:

No, that’s not what the “preponderance of evidence” shows. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But I’m not going to waste my time discussing it with you anymore.


#470

Of course you wont discuss it with me. Every time you do, I debunk you baseless assertions.

The simple truth is, and one you seem to ignore, our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

One of the few times the Court did approached answering this question was in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

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.

That is one reason why I keep pointing out how an immigrant officially and legally declares “allegiance” to our country. They do it by taking our country’s Oath of Allegiance:

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been encouraging the current ongoing invasion of our southern border since 1985 when amnesty was granted to 2.5 million illegal entrants in return for a guarantee to build a wall and secure our border. And here we are today, no wall, but 10-15 million new illegal entrants and the invasion continues


#471

Well? Do the facts not fit into your thinking?

JWK

Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders’ __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created? Do they fear and recoil from the word “free’ like Marx did?


#472

The parents of Wong Kim Ark didn’t take any oath of allegiance to the US and he still was considered a citizen.


#473

There you go again bringing up an irrelevant case. The simple truth is, and one you seem to ignore, our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

The parents of Wong Kim Ark were not considered illegal entrants. Stop trying to muddy the waters.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders’ __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created? Do they fear and recoil from the word “free’ like Marx did?


#474

It’s pretty relevant at debunking literally everything you said in the post it was replying to.

You can stop bringing up any kind of oath of allegiance because it has zero relevance. You can stop bringing up Slaughterhouse because it has zero relevance.


#475

Only in your uniformed mind. The simple truth is, and one you seem to ignore, our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

One of the few times the Court did approached answering this question was in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

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.

That is one reason why I keep pointing out how an immigrant officially and legally declares “allegiance” to our country. They do it by taking our country’s Oath of Allegiance:

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Now, read this very, very slowly: The parents of Wong Kim Ark were not considered illegal entrants. Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant in determining if a child born to an illegal entrant while on American soil is bestowed citizenship by the terms of the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. LINK


#476

Read this very carefully. The oath of allegiance, Slaughterhousr and Minor v Happersett are totally irrelevant to whether a child born to an illegal immigrant on American soil is bestowed citizenship by the 14th amendment.


#477

Guys we’ve got a thread for this argument.

I’m not normally thread police but can we not bring the citizenship argument here when we’ve got a thread for it?


#478

So you agree with me in that our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

I’m glad you finally agree.

JWK
Border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. LINK