Oh for petes sake, you said yourself the constitution specifically named them.
Why don’t you follow the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, the most fundamental rule being, to adhere to the text of the Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text?
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
The fit they are throwing seems all out of proportion if they truly believe it has no chance of passing constitutional muster.
LMAO… “live to see the day”… this has been the LAW since you were born.
I love it when you people pretend to care about that, from the party of people who shout “fire them,” “lock 'em up,” “deport them,” “evict them,” “kill them,” about anybody you don’t like.
Nowhere in my quote did I say they were explicitly defined in the constitution. Please read carefully because it really isn’t an efficient use of time for me to have to correct you with regard to what I have and haven’t said.
It’s been explicitly defined in common law, court cases and I believe in the debate about the 14th Amendment but I don’t have access to that right now.
You forgot to provide a link to the statutory law.
JWK
You forgot to provide a link to establish anything had “changed”.
Cynic
You’re correct sorry, I had read the court cases so often I started thinking they mentioned them in the amendment.
My authority are the very intentions expressed by those who were in attendance of the 39th Congress. And, the fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment said:**
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.
Now, if you have some relevant documentation to shed light on the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which happens to be a qualifier for citizenship being bestowed upon children born on United States Soil, please feel free to post that documentation, rather than personal opinions and insults.
JWK
Do you believe it’s presidents responsibility to test every oddball interpretation?
No, I believe it is his duty to uphold and enforce the document as he understands it. Otherwise there is no point in his taking the oath to do so. Did you throw a fit when Obama issued a plainly unconstitutional EO, proven when he was smacked down unanimously by the Supreme Court?
So, you cannot post the statutory law you made reference to. Did you just make that up?
JWK
So could that be said about Obama deciding to order an air strike against al-Alwaki?
He went with his understanding of the Constitution.
What does it mean to owe allegiance to a country?
Sure, he should have however been challenged on it as I am quite sure Trump will be if he actually goes through with his EO on this.
That’s a terrible answer and even you know it.
Do I? No, can’t say I do.
Actually he was. The lawsuit was dismissed.
The big difference between these circumstances is that it is entirely clear that judicial precedent prevents Trump from doing what he’s proposing.
No judicial precedent prevents him from issuing an Executive order even if it is unconstitutional, otherwise there never would have been one where Obama thought he could decide when congress was in session or not. If Trump is wrong, the courts will check him. And in the meantime, finally rule definitively on the issue.
