• Re: Filter-Free Fridays for Faggots - Episode #4,871 - If Obama Ignored

    From Lou Bricano@21:1/5 to Alan on Fri Feb 21 20:59:09 2025
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism
    XPost: alt.fun, alt.politics.democrats.d

    On 2/21/2025 12:17 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2025-02-21 12:03, AlleyCat wrote:

    On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 23:28:14 -0700,  Gronk says...

    AlleyCat wrote:

    Fourteenth Amendment
    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.

    No mention of the words "black" or "slave"

    No mention of lawn mowers and maids, either. So... who DID it pertain to? >>> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"

    Nope.

    Ex-slaves, ONLY.
    Indians?

    Nope.
    Yup.

    Nope... not when it was written, faggot.

    Stay in context, or stay in "ignore The Faggots" bin.

    Aaaah fuck it.

    Back you go.

    The AUTHOR of the 14th said:

    'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I
    regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits
    of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
    law and national law a citizen of the United States.'
    Why did you omit the rest of the quote? Here is what Jacob Howard, author of the
    citizenship clause, said:

    This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I
    regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within
    the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction,
    is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United
    States. *This will not, of course, include persons born in the United*
    *States who are foreigners, aliens,* who belong to the families of
    ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
    United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    You left it off because you're dishonest.

    Here's what Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the senate judiciary committee where the
    amendment was being debated, had to say:

    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.

    An alien who enters the U.S. illegally and gives birth here is *not* subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore her U.S.-born child is not as well.

    The citizenship clause of the amendment replaced that of the Civil Rights Act of
    1866, which had a slightly different wording:


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons
    born in the United States and *not subject to any foreign power*,
    excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of
    the United States.

    An alien in the U.S. who just happens to give birth here *is* subject to a foreign power, and *therefore* so is her U.S.-born child.

    Automatic /jus soli/ birthright citizenship is bad policy and is not what the adopters of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment intended. The only reason we have it is due to a Supreme Court in 1898 that didn't know what the fuck they were bullshitting about, especially the justice, Horace Gray, who wrote the atrocity of an opinion.

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml

    Gray simply did not know what the fuck he was doing, and he contradicted *himself* in his opinion in Elk v. Wilkins. This is what Gray wrote in Elk:

    This section [citizenship clause of 14th amendment] contemplates two
    sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and
    naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons
    born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
    jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is,
    not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of
    the United States, but completely subject to their political
    jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

    http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/112/94.html

    *Completely* subject to the United States' political jurisdiction, not merely subject to the laws. A foreign tourist here has to obey our laws, but is *not* subject to military service or jury duty. A tourist is not subject to the *complete* political jurisdiction of the country, and nor is an unlawfully present alien. And nor is the U.S.-born child of such an alien.

    The U.S.-born children of aliens not lawfully present in the U.S. should not be considered citizens, under a correct reading of the amendment and what the amendment author and ratifiers intended.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hut-Sut Ralson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 22 08:00:52 2025
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism
    XPost: alt.fun, alt.politics.democrats.d

    If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!

    Why did you omit the rest of the quote? Here is what Jacob Howard, author of the
    citizenship clause, said:

    This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I
    regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within
    the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction,
    is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United
    States. *This will not, of course, include persons born in the United*
    *States who are foreigners, aliens,* who belong to the families of
    ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
    United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    You are correct... "ditto". (Meaning: that's what I'd have said, but
    you already said it.) I would mention that my high school civics
    teacher (who required us to read, and practically memorize, the
    Constitution of the United States) cited the author as John Bingham...
    but, that was a long time ago and history changes like the climate in
    the current polarized social situation, thus "truth" is now relative.

    If you were to ask the average gun owner, it's likely that he or she
    would say the author of the second amendment was Thomas Jefferson
    because he has commented at length. My point (assuming that there
    *is* such a thing in TPG) being that, regardless of who wrote what,
    post facto commentary is irrelevant from the perspective of
    constitutional law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)