14th Amendment, Let's Change It

[Colonel Hogan]

I thank the good Colonel for his scholarship.

Although you are technically correct that Wong Kim Ark did not specifically rule on the question of jus soli citizenship to children of illegal aliens, it is rather foolish to ignore the direction in which the law is headed (via Plyler v. Doe and others) or to pretend that the battle could be waged legislatively when the Court is likely to rule otherwise.

 

[John Doe]

I thank the good Colonel for his scholarship.

Me like too.

 

[unregistered]

 

[The Mutt]

I understand completely the realities of the intrusive judiciary, but tell me why the Congress has to continue to go along with it? Tell me why the Congress cannot do this by statute and deny the SCOTUS judicial review?

I'm just curious, as I believe that an amendment to close this loophole would succeed forthwith. Americans are tired of this travesty.

Because the three branches of government are equal? Under the Constitution? That our Founding Fathers wrote?

 

[Lost Cause]

I always thought that you weren't a citizen until both parents were naturalized.

The law already exists..

Naturalization in the United States requires:

1. lawful entry for permanent residence;
2. five years residence or, for spouses of U.S. citizens, three years;
3. good moral character, as displayed during the period of residence;
4. attachment to the Constitution;
5. understanding of English, including an ability to read, write, and speak it except where physical disability prevents;
6. knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and government; and
7. residence for six months in the district of the naturalization court.

Aliens under the age of 16 may acquire citizenship upon the naturalization of their parents.

McCarran-Walter Act of 1952

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...toid=f3829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

 

[eyer]

I understand completely the realities of the intrusive judiciary, but tell me why the Congress has to continue to go along with it? Tell me why the Congress cannot do this by statute and deny the SCOTUS judicial review?

I'm just curious, as I believe that an amendment to close this loophole would succeed forthwith. Americans are tired of this travesty.

IMWO, the SCOTUS is the most conservative today of the three branches, but it will not be long before the socialist tide overtakes it, too. With the most recent addition, it's very close now. Considering Roberts is the youngest "conservative" at 55, within 20 years what we know as "conservative" today will be totally gone from the Court.

Congress is socialist already, and the partisan presidency long ago lost any sense of independence.

We will have legal amnesty for all illegal aliens. We will have have legal gay marriage. We will continue to have cradle-to-grave entitlement. We will continue to forcefully take more and more and more from the bread of individual labor to give to those who are to lazy to work. And we, the people, will continue to petition our government for permission for all these things and more...

Thus, much more important than the three branches is the fact that no significant number of the people are willing to pledge their lives or their fortunes to what it will take to reverse the socialist slide were on. Most, obviously, are totally blind to the fall. Most of those who do know will do what human nature tells them: draw inward, hold on to what you can, protect your own, and hope for the best. After all, life goes on...

...very, very, very few will stand up and refuse to play the socialist game any longer.

And sacred honor?

Where, oh where has that sacred honor of the free individual gone?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I understand completely the realities of the intrusive judiciary, but tell me why the Congress has to continue to go along with it? Tell me why the Congress cannot do this by statute and deny the SCOTUS judicial review?

I'm just curious, as I believe that an amendment to close this loophole would succeed forthwith. Americans are tired of this travesty.

The Constitution (and judicial review of it) always trumps state and federal legislation wherever the two conflict. Therefore, something as ingrained as the concept of judicial review could never be denied by statute. Nor would you want it to be. Trust me. It serves to restrict legal abuse from all extremes, even though it may not appear to do so at a given point in time.

What would be reasonable it seems to me is a wide ranging Constitutional amendment that sets forth certain legal principles, definitions and parameters by which the rest of the document should be viewed. Something that attempts to better clarify the extent of "enumerated vs. unenumerated rights," the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, etc.

But it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment. Because the Constitution, thanks to the Court's distortion of it, is what needs to be corrected. And attempting to steer a Constitutional course by legislative mandate is like trying to drive a car from the back seat. It just ain't right, and somebody is sure to get hurt.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[sigmundfreudIV]

grave times

We are living in times of grave impiety and we will eventually pay the price for such a position we take.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I understand, but even the concept of Judicial Review had to be usurped by the Court. What we are seeing is the total dismantling of the Constitution and it's principles of federalism.

I just think that the best corrective course of action is through one or more Constitutional amendments.

But here is an interesting dissent that I think you will enjoy.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9901/articles/clinton.html

G'nite!

 

[Byron In Exile]

typical of a yank to have to resort to fiction in attempting to discuss their diva-ish late entrance into WWII

Lol...

That entrance was a mistake.

the dude is hot. you are just jealous.

I can't imagine going through life covered in fur like that.

It's disgusting.

Dogs don't know any better. People should.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Too many brown people.

Sez the guy from the 92% white country...

You want some Mexicans? We got 'em.

Your cuisine will certainly improve.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Or we could just use our head and realize the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

No, it's just the Supreme Law of the Land.

So... what are you suggesting?

Some sort of armed revolt?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I understand, but even the concept of Judicial Review had to be usurped by the Court. What we are seeing is the total dismantling of the Constitution and it's principles of federalism.

This makes no sense, no surprise really.

What you're asking for is a total dismantling of the Constitution and the principle of civil rights in order to discriminate against a citizen born in the United States based on a legal infraction committed by his or her parents.

The concept of Judicial review has been in place since very shortly after the Constitution was enacted (precedent of judicial review was set because of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803).

 

[Byron In Exile]

The same words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which exclude indigenous peoples like Eskimos and American Indians were believed to exclude "foreigners, aliens, etc." and for the same reason -- the prospect of an allegiance to or possible "jurisdictional" interest by some other government or ruling entity other than the United States.

That might apply to Native Americans, but how could it apply to illegal aliens?

If they were not subject to US jurisdiction, how could they be arrested and deported?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I understand completely the realities of the intrusive judiciary, but tell me why the Congress has to continue to go along with it? Tell me why the Congress cannot do this by statute and deny the SCOTUS judicial review?

I'm just curious, as I believe that an amendment to close this loophole would succeed forthwith. Americans are tired of this travesty.

Seriously?

You can't have missed the reaction to Arizona's SB 1070, which was mild by comparison to what you're proposing.

It might pass on a national referendum, but it's not going to get approval from three-fourths of the State legislatures, or two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

 

[Byron In Exile]

IMWO, the SCOTUS is the most conservative today of the three branches,

That's true.

but it will not be long before the socialist tide overtakes it, too. With the most recent addition, it's very close now.

Kagan for Stevens is pretty much an even swap.

Fairly meaningless, even if she eventually learns how to write an opinion.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

What would be reasonable it seems to me is a wide ranging Constitutional amendment that sets forth certain legal principles, definitions and parameters by which the rest of the document should be viewed. Something that attempts to better clarify the extent of "enumerated vs. unenumerated rights," the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, etc.

That will be more likely to happen in some alternate universe.

 

[kbate]

A majority of Americans support what AZ did, and I suspect when asked to put their imprimatur on the idea of an illegal alien crossing the border, giving birth to a kid, and that kid getting the full benefit of American citizenship, will turn thumbs down. The absence of a loop hole for anchor babies would do no harm to Americans. You're probably right about the Amendment process, but I don't know.

I think you really to sit down for some quiet time and think about the ramifications of your repeated love of the "majority", and just what will happen to freedoms in this nation if we did have "majority rule".

Of late, you seem to be arguing for Legislation by Poll and/or Pure Democracy.

 

[Sean]

Sez the guy from the 92% white country...

You want some Mexicans? We got 'em.

Your cuisine will certainly improve.

92% white? Not even close. And hasn't been since the fifties.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I think you really to sit down for some quiet time and think about the ramifications of your repeated love of the "majority", and just what will happen to freedoms in this nation if we did have "majority rule".

Of late, you seem to be arguing for Legislation by Poll and/or Pure Democracy.

I really don't understand why he's suddenly advocating an absolute democracy over a Constitutional Republic.

It's weird.

 

[Byron In Exile]

92% white? Not even close. And hasn't been since the fifties.

So... how about those Mexicans?

 

[unregistered]