Thread: Glenn Beck / Judge Napolitano push for Constitutional Conven

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

Interpreting is everything There will have to be laws passed to fix the 14th Amendment. There are Congress members working on the language to fix the 14th.

Well, what the laws will do is fix the US government's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There's already at least 1 legislation drafted and already introduced into Congress. There may be more in the works. I'll see if i can the one that's already been introduced. I forget the bill number. I'll research it and be back with it.

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit citizenship at birth, merely by virtue of birth in the United States, to persons with citizen or legal resident mothers. (Introduced in House)

HR 126 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 126

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit citizenship at birth, merely by virtue of birth in the United States, to persons with citizen or legal resident mothers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. GALLEGLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit citizenship at birth, merely by virtue of birth in the United States, to persons with citizen or legal resident mothers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITING CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES, TO PERSONS WITH LEGAL RESIDENT MOTHERS.

(a) In General- Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401(a)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: `, of a mother who is a citizen or legal resident of the United States'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to persons born after the date of ratification of an article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States that repeals the first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

______________


This one is in the House now, and amends the 14th Amendment also, which I guess is okay, it's very simple.

I'll check the Senate, too.

Here's the one I was looking for, it's in the House and doesn't require 14th Amendment modification, has 46 sponsors, too!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h111-1868

Text of H.R. 1868: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009

This version: Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.

HR 1868 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1868

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2009

Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. JONES, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. HELLER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. LINDER, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. HERGER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. FOXX, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. POE of Texas, and Mr. PRICE of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--

(1) by inserting ‘(a) IN GENERAL- ’ before ‘The following’;

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--

‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

‘(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.

(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

____________________________

This is the one I like, because you don't have to amend the 14th Amendment, it reflects the 14th Amendment and binds the government to do its job.

I like the bill number too, the year the 14th Amendment was passed, 1868. Now I can remember it.

Judy I truly appreciate your work and effort here at ALIPAC.

With the socialistic tendencies this administration and Congress has shown, a Constitutional Convention would be the worst thing for us. It would probably lead to secession by a few states.

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

Judy I truly appreciate your work and effort here at ALIPAC.

You mean trolling the thread and changing the subject of the thread which is Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano encouraging tea party members to call for a constitutional convention?



JWK

Originally Posted by kniggit

With the socialistic tendencies this administration and Congress has shown, a Constitutional Convention would be the worst thing for us. It would probably lead to secession by a few states.

And who would attend a convention if one were to be called?

Well, During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!

The suit went on to charge

“there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.â€

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

Judy I truly appreciate your work and effort here at ALIPAC.

Thank you vmonkey56!

Originally Posted by kniggit

With the socialistic tendencies this administration and Congress has shown, a Constitutional Convention would be the worst thing for us. It would probably lead to secession by a few states.

Yes, I think a Constitutional Convention would be very dangerous at this time for the United States. Akin to the EU attempt to adopt a new constitution in Europe which thank God was defeated by the French, Vive La France, who actually bothered to read the 500 page socialist-globalist disaster and said "hell no". Then the Brits said "if the French don't want it we aren't even putting it up for referendum, and then the Dutch voted and said no as well, as did the Irish, and the permanent Globalisation of Europe was defeated.

Socialist Globalists worst fears today?

Secure Borders, FairTax, Protectionism, Legalized National Drug Trades, and Lifting Bans on Oil and Gas Drilling in the United States.

Calling for a Constitutional Convention is naive at this juncture, well-intentioned, but I fear the process would simply fall into the hands of the Globalists, our enemy.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Originally Posted by kniggit

With the socialistic tendencies this administration and Congress has shown, a Constitutional Convention would be the worst thing for us. It would probably lead to secession by a few states.

Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano should be very careful in encouraging tea party participants to call for a constitutional convention. They should be encouraging every tea party member to start a campaign demanding Congress send to the states for ratification a Constitutional Amendment providing that:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

This would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan, imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption, and, a direct apportioned tax if Congress borrows to meet expenses…a built in method to balance the budget!

Regards,

JWK

What is the difference to you between excise taxes on consumption and a FairTax on consumption at the retail level? There is no difference under the US Constitution, except that excise taxes are imposed with prejudice and discrimination whereas the FairTax is imposed without prejudice and discrimination on all new goods and services.

Excise taxes are the socialists dream tax, to use taxation embedded with prejudice and discrimiation, to manipulate consumers into a certain behavior.

http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossarye/g/excisetax.htm

"Definition:

"An excise tax is a tax on use or consumption of certain products. Excise taxes are sometimes included in the price of a product, such as motor fuels, cigarettes, and alcohol. Excise taxes may also be imposed on some activities, like gambling. Excise taxes may be imposed by the federal government or by a state."

The FairTax taxes all consumption of new goods and services without prejudice, without discrimination, without manipulation of consumers to buy one article over another, to purchase one service versus another. The FairTax is a uniform, unbiased excise tax on consumption at the final point of distribution to the consumer at the retail level. It exempts essentials through the Rebate and is completely and fully uniform, is not a direct tax like income or property taxes, but is an indirect tax exactly like excise taxes, imposts and duties, and as a result do not need any involvement by the states except their voluntary agreement, to collect the tax from the retailers, monitor the program, send in the money and be paid a handsome fee for their collection services.

If you want to balance the budget, we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of what most states have with their state constitutions, and except certain periods for war, disasters, etc.

Anyway, I like the FairTax very much, and believe it is the best tax collection measure possible, see no constitutional issue with it at all, would like to see the 16th Amendment repealed within the 7 year sunset provision of the FairTax legislation which I believe the states will ratify without dispute as it certainly favors their states to do so, and at some point when our economy has recovered, pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to protect our nation against this reckless debt spending in the future when we can afford to balance the budget and pay off this horrendous debt.

As to the constitutional convention, one isn't necessary to pass the FairTax. Americans need to learn more about the FairTax, how it works, how it benefits them, our economy and our nation, and then lobby Congress as hard as they can to demand passage of HB 25 in the US House of Representatives and SB 296 in the US Senate, immediately.

The FairTax eliminates the income tax, which means it eliminates any legal incentive or motivation for corporations to contribute to these endless numbers of not-for-profit 501 C 3 organizations like National Council of La Raza and MALDEF and all the other Globalist riff-raff hiding behind "charity" trying to open our borders and destroy our country.

The FairTax also taxes all consumers, including illegal aliens, so under the FairTax, they don't get a free ride on the taxpayers of the United States. They also don't qualify under the FairTax for the Rebate, because they aren't US citizens or Legal Residents, so we get taxes from them to pay for their costs of illegal immigration without having to Rebate any of it back to them for their essentials. It's beautiful. I love the FairTax. It's so smart, so simple, so easy, so free, so yummy.

www.fairtax.org