Thread: "subject to the jurisdiction" - Trumbull, Bingham,

Amendment XIV: the Coulter interpretation

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter

Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies
Ann Coulter . . . 8/4/10

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves - many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "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."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409

Interesting article MinutemanCDC_SC.

Seems that not only did the fair(?) Justice Brennan fail to take into account the differences between "lawful" aliens and "unlawful" aliens, but also failed to take into account the spirit of the debate at the time that the Amendment was adopted.

I have some books from the period concerning the lives and careers of some of the legislators and their speeches concerning the adoption. I have not spent much time, other than browsing as my search was on another topic, (Wish I could chew gum and walk at the same time.) but just through the quick browse mode the spirit of intent seemed quite easy to understand.

The debates during that period were heated as the south was still under the gun. Wether one agrees with the south's reasoning, or even understands all of it that led to the war may be of little merit concerning the 14th, but had Congress used imposts instead of tariffs perhaps that war may have been avoided. However the nation might have missed out on the introduction to the greenback. JMO

The reversal of this would start heading us in the right direction,
better late then never.

Thank you Ann Coulter for doing the research and conferring the intent of the 14th Amendment which not only matches it words in their plain and simple meanings in our language but the will and common sense of any American with 2 live brain cells still connected with the ability to read it.

[quote]Sen. Lyman Trumbull (D/R/D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who inserted the "jurisdiction" phrase, wrote, "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Rep. John Bingham (R-OH), who authored the first section of Amendment XIV, said, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.â€

The bottom line here is that Congress has the authority to enforce the 14th amendment. The word enforcement is not defined in the Constitution. Enforcement means whatever Congress says it means. In this case if someone is born in the U. S. with both parents inside the U. S. illegallly then they aren't subject to the full jurisdiction of the Federal government. That is quite obvious because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that an illegal alien can't be drafted or forced to serve on a jury etc. Therefore any anchor baby can't be an automatic citizen because the parents aren't citizens or legal residents.
The Supreme Court will have no choice but to find the law constitutional.

Most of us have read , and understand the intent of the 14th

Now try telling that to the liberal morons that love illegals

Keep in mind the vast number of liberal judges we have in this country

Keep in mind that this is not going to be easy but also keep in mind that it has to be done if , if you want to keep this country

Illegal hispanics are intent on taking over this country , they have it easy here , Stupid gringos give them everything , they will not go quietly

The problem as I see it is that you cannot just petition the supreme court for a ruling on the issue ,

Even the supreme court is not a lock on our point of view

Remember they have liberal members , including one that use to belong to la raza ,

The court is not without bias , and its not a guaranteed win

Personally , The supreme court should be completely neutral , but that is not the case , it is biased , depending on which party has the most fruits and nuts in the mix

Justthatguy wrote,

That is quite obvious because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that an illegal alien can't be drafted or forced to serve on a jury etc. Therefore any anchor baby can't be an automatic citizen because the parents aren't citizens or legal residents.

Another great point.

It is little wonder why the tyrants on the Potomac want control of the internet. While they take our tax dollars and form think tanks designed to enslave us, we the people take of our own time and form our own think tanks and devastate their tyranny.

Justthefacts wrote,

The supreme court should be completely neutral ,

Is it their job to interpret the 14th?

The Congress can do this on their own.

Originally Posted by roundabout

Justthefacts wrote,

The supreme court should be completely neutral ,

Is it their job to interpret the 14th?

The Congress can do this on their own.

Yes , they can
The house can , but it would never pass the senate in its current form
Nor would Dumbomba sign it

We have 2 more years of dumbomba , If Arizona or any other state passes laws outlawing anchor babies chances are it would take that amount of time to work its way up to the supreme court

The important thing is that the legislation gets started asap

At least at this point its in the works , the house bill has almost 100 co sponsers so its lookin good right now

Be aware that the latino reconquista has a huge lobby in this country and they will be putting on huge amounts of pressure