14th Amendment In The News

[togor]

Section 1:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I guess we get to look forward to anti-immigration Constitutional literalists explain how the phrase "all persons" was interpreted differently back then. All praise and Glory be upon Trump!

[dryheat]

Trump is our only hope.

[dogtag]

It will be up to the Supreme Court eventually which is why it's Justices are so important.

[PWC]

I hope the constitutional lawyers have a good explaination for "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ".

I hope Trump has good constitutional lawyers to advise him not to issue an executive order. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems plain to me. I don't see how an executive order can change the constitution. I hope it can't. As much as I like the intent, I think if he does it, he will have handed the Dem Liberal Left the illegal action they are slobbering for his impeachment.

And, if it does, just wait until the Dems do get back the presidency; watch for executive order to invalidate the 2nd amendment as a start.

[togor]

PWC I'm glad to say I think you hit the X ring.

[bostonbound]

I hope the constitutional lawyers have a good explaination for "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ".

I hope Trump has good constitutional lawyers to advise him not to issue an executive order. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems plain to me. I don't see how an executive order can change the constitution. I hope it can't. As much as I like the intent, I think if he does it, he will have handed the Dem Liberal Left the illegal action they are slobbering for his impeachment.

And, if it does, just wait until the Dems do get back the presidency; watch for executive order to invalidate the 2nd amendment as a start.

If he issues an executive order, it will be on the interpretation of the remainder of the line you so blithely quoted " 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." Some people (I've not studied the issue and therefore do not have an opinion) state the bolded words were put in to exclude children of foreign nationals.

Just as there seems to be more than one interpretation of the bolded words in the Second Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If he does direct a specific interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it would not be necessarily illegal, but would certainly be challenged in the courts and almost as certainly end up in the Supreme Court for a (maybe final) interpretation.

The Dems will cry "Illegal" over anything Trump does, just as they did with the various travel bans. Liberal judges will rule against Trump as they always do, and it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who is (currently) correct.

[Fred Pillot]

From what I've read "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the magic portion to be understood. The 14th Amendment was passed for the Black ex slaves in the US. They were no longer Africans but were Americans and needed citizenship.
They were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[Vern Humphrey]

The XIV Amendment was thoroughly explained when it was first proposed. A key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- the children of foreign diplomats do not become citizens because they have diplomatic immunity. Indians did not become citizens because they were not subject to White Man's laws, but only to those of their own nation (On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans with the Indian Citizenship Act.)

Note the amendment also says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," echoing a similar prohibition on the Federal Government in the V Amendment. Yet somehow unborn children -- who are just as human as you or I -- may be killed for mere convenience' sake.

The Constitution cannot be set aside by Executive Order (nor by Federal Law, either -- but that doesn't stop Congress.)

[bostonbound]

The XIV Amendment was thoroughly explained when it was first proposed. A key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- the children of foreign diplomats do not become citizens because they have diplomatic immunity. Indians did not become citizens because they were not subject to White Man's laws, but only to those of their own nation (On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans with the Indian Citizenship Act.)

Note the amendment also says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," echoing a similar prohibition on the Federal Government in the V Amendment. Yet somehow unborn children -- who are just as human as you or I -- may be killed for mere convenience' sake.

The Constitution cannot be set aside by Executive Order (nor by Federal Law, either -- but that doesn't stop Congress.)

As of now it is up to the Supreme Court to decide on interpretations of the words in the Constitution. Which is one of the biggest arguments of all - is it a "living" document or a "static" document.

Democrats generally favor a "Flavor of the Day" approach; Republicans generally favor a "Cast in Stone" approach. What is sometimes amusing is to see the party positions flip based on what they want to achieve.

I neither agree nor disagree with Vern's argument, but he has not yet been confirmed by the Senate as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I'm willing to sit back and eat popcorn on this one.

[dogtag]

There should be a huge sign at the border - "NO BABY DUMPING"

[togor]

Not to turn this into an abortion debate Vernon but I would point out that the initial reference to "persons" in section one refers to those who are born or naturalized. The unborn fit neither category.

[bostonbound]

Not to turn this into an abortion debate Vernon but I would point out that the initial reference to "persons" in section one refers to those who are born or naturalized. The unborn fit neither category.

Please let's not rehash that debate - the thread is available for anyone who wants to find it. we've all heard both sides - and I know Vern brought it up first.

[Vern Humphrey]

Wouldn't it be nice if someone who speaks English would explain that?

The XIV Amendment does NOT define "person.' It defines "citizen."

[Roadkingtrax]

Please let's not rehash that debate - the thread is available for anyone who wants to find it. we've all heard both sides - and I know Vern brought it up first.

Can we have the benefit of a name from BostonBound?

Certainly that is fair.

[PWC]

Boy, I hope you guys are right about the "jurisdiction" being the rule. That's why I hope for good comstitutional laeyers. If / when he issues it, some liberal judge, probably in the 9th circuit will enjoin it. Hopefully, it will go quickly to the SCOTUS and be moved up their schedule.