IANAL
So, a “legal affairs writer” is seriously arguing that amending the constitution is unconstitutional? Uhm, that’s kind of what that process is there for.
7 Responses to “IANAL”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 20th, 2015 at 12:13 pm
So did the writer forget that unconstitutional has a meaning other than “Something I don’t like”?
August 20th, 2015 at 12:44 pm
IANAL = Worst Apple product ever.
August 20th, 2015 at 1:12 pm
Don’t need a constitutional amendment, just another executive order…
Actually, Mark Levine contends that this is in fact just another made-up-from-whole-cloth-law by our masters in black.
August 20th, 2015 at 2:00 pm
He’s wrong. The same amendment says that birthright citizenship is extended to all persons “subject to the jurisdiction of [the US]”. The very same Congress that passed the 14th defined that as “not subject to any foreign power.” Illegal immigrants are absolutely subject to a foreign power (in this case Mexico) and are therefore not automatically entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
You can’t have one part of an amendment read words out of another part of the same amendment. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has to mean something.
August 20th, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Uh, saying that they aren’t “”subject to the jurisdiction of the US” means that they effectively have diplomatic immunity & the only way we’d be able to punish them is to expel them from the country.
August 20th, 2015 at 4:32 pm
No. It isn’t. Those are the words in the 14th Amendment.
At the time, the amendment was crafted to deal with negro freedmen and Indians. That language was used to exclude Indians from citizenship because even though they were physically inside the united states, they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian nations. The same thing applies to citizens of foreign countries. The birthright clause applies to people who are not citizens of any other country and were born in the US.
Go read US v Wong Kim Ark (SCOTUS 1898). “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States,” by the addition, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law,) the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England, and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.” (Emphasis added.) Ark’s parents emigrated to the US legally, which is why he was a citizen. His parents weren’t illegals — i.e. invaders.
As soon as we declare illegal immigrants to be hostile enemies, the anchor baby problem is over (and I think it is a fair characterization.)
August 23rd, 2015 at 8:42 am
Phelps writes,”As soon as we declare illegal immigrants to be hostile enemies, the anchor baby problem is over (and I think it is a fair characterization.)”
Yes, and especially those in officialdom, who in defiance of our laws, aid and abet them to invade and then impose on citizens and LEGAL immigrants to appease and accommodate the invaders. They are the domestic “hostile enemies” giving “aid and comfort” to the illegal alien “hostile enemies”.