Thread: The 14th Amendment: Rand Paul Is Right

The 14th Amendment: Rand Paul Is Right
by Lynn Woolley

06/07/2010

Republican Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul has a way of getting under people’s skin with his libertarian insistence that we actually pay attention to the Constitution.

First he dared to opine that some parts of the 1964 Civil Right Act—while commendable in its ideals—might have lacked constitutional authority. But now, he’s apparently gone too far. He’s saying that the 14th Amendment does NOT grant citizenship to the American-born children of illegal aliens.

“A lot of this is about demographics,â€

ive read that the 14th was never ratified. show me where it was.

14th never ratified... see vids below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-60wln ... ure=digest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CeifAbU ... ure=digest

hardline, just got a book and was reading it, and low and behold in the footnotes on a certain page was a note that made me think of your hardline efforts concerning the ratification of the 14th. (or the lack thereof) I will admit,.....I was hesitant when you first brought this to my attention. Perhaps just a tad bit towards the fringe,......perhaps?

From the book, TO PRAY OR NOT TO PRAY by Charles Wesley Lowry copyright 1963

This passage is preceded by a historical commentary concerning the Blaine amendment of 1876.

"This is evidence of deep and telling import. It does not depend on the tangled issues of the voting by states on the 14th Amendment and the potential challenge to its legality inherent in the fact that the Southern States were denied an opportunity to vote on this decisive alteration in the Federal Constitution, in contrast to the procedure followed in the case of the 13 Amendment. The Blaine Amendment proves beyond any doubt that the Members of the 44th Congress-many of whom like Blaine had been in Congress less than ten years earlier when the 14th Amendment was adopted-did not regard the religion clauses of the First Amendment as automatically applied to the States by the 14th Amendment."

made me think of your hardline efforts

Thanks brother man...that means a lot!

This is a crazy subject. But the thanks for my efforts go to Bruce Ray at dirtyunclesam.com Check his site out and drop him a line. He has put 20 years into the effort.

Whether one believes the 14th was ratified or not - it has been considered the law of the land for over 100 years. Having said that, the intent of the 14th amendment was NOT to give children of illegals birthright citizenship -- read the 14th again please. " Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means LEGALLY here and living LEGALLY in the UNITED STATES. The 14th was NEVER intended to be a goal line for anchor baby touchdowns sorry. Deport all illegal aliens AND their children...

Here is an earlier post with more discussion and news link:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-200568-0-da ... -14th.html
and
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-201918.html

No to citizenship or guest worker permits for illegals, no to chain migration, no to anchor babies!

I SUPPORT immigration reform that makes our borders secure, aggressively enforces Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code and other immigration laws, aggressively seeking and finding and giving HIGH fines and felony prison time to ANY employer of illegal aliens, checking citizenship status in ALL law enforcement activities and deporting illegal aliens discovered, placing high tariffs on nations using wage-slave labor like China, and giving JOBS and HELP for the 17% U6 American Voters without full time employment, ending all immigration when unemployment is above 4.1%.

I OPPOSE any "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens, guest worker permits, amnesty for illegal aliens and their employers, incentives for illegal aliens like licenses and welfare and lax enforcement and citizenship, chain migration, any anchor baby citizenship, dual citizenship or dual allegiance of any American citizen, offshoring of jobs, NAFTA.

Yes MarkB
The intent was to protect slave born kids not foreign invaders.

But saying that it has been the law of the land does not fly well with me. War criminals have no statute of limitations and usurpers and traitors do not either in my opinion.

Although the usurpers are dead now...the fallout to the illegitimate populous lives on. The law was never ratified meaning that everything done and everything that is happening now had no legitimacy. What does that mean? I have no idea. But in fairness to the United States and the Constitution the validity question needs to be addressed. The "stick your head in the sand" mentality of the populous and Congress must end...if it does not the Republic will and it is near gone now.

Just as the usurpation in the Obama eligibility issue. It does not matter that a man was seated as POTUS. It matters that he was not legally seated as required by Constitutional law. Until people understand how this country became the great nation that is was...we have no chance of regaining it back again. Every piece of paper that Obama has signed is illegitimate. Every court case sighting the 14th is illegitimate. This is not a matter of small contention.

Just as congress sold us out to a private banking institution that two presidents were shot over. A total conspiracy of deception and murder on the American people. Is that yet another...ow well...it is just the law of the land now issue? I don't mean to sound personal here...because this is the common knowledge thinking today. I simply do not agree with it. IMHO

You can't keep stacking everything as not important. All the not important issues are why we have a run away government. They are not being held accountable for their illegal unconstitutional traitorous actions so they run free. Even popular vote will not rain them in. Only the Constitution has that power.

"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it..." I'm sorry but I do not find any humor in all this.