Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Charm City--the city that bleeds
    Posts
    2,790

    Huckabee likes misapplying the 14th Amendment

    I heard him say yesterday (8th of January 2008)that he has not ever given thought to whether the amendment is being misused.

    I find that hard to believe, given the political climate in the state of Arkansas (Hello, Tyson foods). He pushed for college scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, and then he says he never thought about the 14th Amendment being misused.

    Pardon me if I sound incensed, but I don't believe a word of it.

    "Mike Huckabee yesterday contradicted his own top immigration surrogate, announcing he will not support a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens."
    See the rest of the article
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...992492919/1001
    It's great to be alive and pumping oxygen!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,538
    I think preventing people born here from being natural citizens is like closing the barn door after the horses get out.

    If we just apply the laws that are already on the books and punish those who hire illegals, the illegals would have no reason to come here in the first place.

    Writing new laws and changing ammendments will have no effect if the new ones are not enforced.

    So the concept of changing the ammendment may sound like a good idea on the surface, but the rationale behind it is vague at best.

    Huckabee probably felt a little vague on the subject as well.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,933
    While I could accept any of the remaining four Republican candidates, I still like Huckabee the best.

    Boy, McCain and Romney sure got into some cat fights at the debate at the Reagan Library. Even made ole Ron Paul sound more rational then usual.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,551
    Congress just needs to exert their rights and pass a law defining the 14th Amendment stating that if you were born in the US as a slave and were here legally then you are and American citizen and otherwise you have to have at least one American parent to qualified to be an American wherever you were born. Therefore those here whether illegally, on tourist or work visas do not qualify for citizenship. No other country has such goofy easy citizenship rules.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Congress just needs to exert their rights and pass a law defining the 14th Amendment stating that if you were born in the US as a slave and were here legally then you are and American citizen and otherwise you have to have at least one American parent to qualified to be an American wherever you were born. Therefore those here whether illegally, on tourist or work visas do not qualify for citizenship. No other country has such goofy easy citizenship rules.
    Congress has no "right" to do as you say. Amending the constitution requires passage through both houses, then it gets sent to the states for ratification by at least 3/4's of our States' legislatures, within 7 years. It's a bit more complicated then the morons in Washington asserting any rights. You'd have a new amendment then, wherein there would be language to supersede any objectionable language in the 14th. But I guess just assuming their jobs are really that easy makes it much easier to criticize them when they seem like befuddled idiots (hey wait, they are).

    If Congress were to pass a more standard statute as you describe it, and the Prez signed it into law, it would be promptly overturned by the Supreme court as contrary to the constitution it sought to "redefine". Only an amendment can change an amendment (prohibition, e.g.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,551
    Quote Originally Posted by drcustom View Post
    Congress has no "right" to do as you say. Amending the constitution requires passage through both houses, then it gets sent to the states for ratification by at least 3/4's of our States' legislatures, within 7 years. It's a bit more complicated then the morons in Washington asserting any rights. You'd have a new amendment then, wherein there would be language to supersede any objectionable language in the 14th. But I guess just assuming their jobs are really that easy makes it much easier to criticize them when they seem like befuddled idiots (hey wait, they are).

    If Congress were to pass a more standard statute as you describe it, and the Prez signed it into law, it would be promptly overturned by the Supreme court as contrary to the constitution it sought to "redefine". Only an amendment can change an amendment (prohibition, e.g.)
    Sorry I didn't realize that you had a law degree and specialized in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens. It did not say "anyone born in the US is considered a citizen" Besides the 14th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4s of the states legally. The Southern states were illegally forced to ratify it in order to be admitted back into the Union and while the state legislators were forced to ratify the amendment they were not allowed to have their representatives in the House or Senate at the time Congress passed it. It was a rump Congress without the representatives from the 11 former Confederate States. I'm sure that particular clause on citizenship could not pass muster now nor at any time in the history of the US but only when the radicals took control of Congress and the South wasn't allowed to participate.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Sorry I didn't realize that you had a law degree and specialized in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens. It did not say "anyone born in the US is considered a citizen" Besides the 14th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4s of the states legally. The Southern states were illegally forced to ratify it in order to be admitted back into the Union and while the state legislators were forced to ratify the amendment they were not allowed to have their representatives in the House or Senate at the time Congress passed it. It was a rump Congress without the representatives from the 11 former Confederate States. I'm sure that particular clause on citizenship could not pass muster now nor at any time in the history of the US but only when the radicals took control of Congress and the South wasn't allowed to participate.
    Kind of like the 16th Amendment, ratified back door style.

    Roy
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,551
    Quote Originally Posted by royc View Post
    Kind of like the 16th Amendment, ratified back door style.

    Roy
    I'm for the Fair Tax but I wasn't aware of the amendment being passed illegally like the 14th was.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    I'm for the Fair Tax but I wasn't aware of the amendment being passed illegally like the 14th was.
    Didnt say illegal, said "back door style". Of course that depends on what "IS" is in illegal..<grin>

    http://www.givemeliberty.org/feature...otratified.htm

    Roy
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Sorry I didn't realize that you had a law degree and specialized in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens. It did not say "anyone born in the US is considered a citizen" Besides the 14th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4s of the states legally. The Southern states were illegally forced to ratify it in order to be admitted back into the Union and while the state legislators were forced to ratify the amendment they were not allowed to have their representatives in the House or Senate at the time Congress passed it. It was a rump Congress without the representatives from the 11 former Confederate States. I'm sure that particular clause on citizenship could not pass muster now nor at any time in the history of the US but only when the radicals took control of Congress and the South wasn't allowed to participate.
    Glenn, unbunch your panties. Who in the hell are you to say, "the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens". You're taking the then-current context of it's passage and thinking ...what? that they overstated their convictions and got a little wild with their intentions? Did the founding fathers frame the 1st Amendment so that Americans would always be free to ***** about the Stamp Act? You sound like the nut Chavez down there in Venezuela. A dictator. Glad you're not running the show. You think you can just declare your narrow interpretation like that on the internet? Feel better? What if every bloke walked around America doing that, with their bubble gum joe six pack interpretations to support their opinions. You're funny, man. The language is what it is, and it doesn't say "the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens". It says, for better or worse, "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." And personally I wish it weren't so broad too so don't assume I disagree with you. You're the one thinking you have a law degree, I'm only reiterating what's available to any American--the Constitution itself. Go have a drink or something...

    I like the fair tax though so you can't be all bad.
    Last edited by drcustom; 02-29-2008 at 06:27 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    DRC, historically, glenn is right. The 14th Amendment was written with children of slaves in mind.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,551
    Quote Originally Posted by drcustom View Post
    Glenn, unbunch your panties. Who in the hell are you to say, "the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens". You're taking the then-current context of it's passage and thinking ...what? that they overstated their convictions and got a little wild with their intentions? Did the founding fathers frame the 1st Amendment so that Americans would always be free to ***** about the Stamp Act? You sound like the nut Chavez down there in Venezuela. A dictator. Glad you're not running the show. You think you can just declare your narrow interpretation like that on the internet? Feel better? What if every bloke walked around America doing that, with their bubble gum joe six pack interpretations to support their opinions. You're funny, man. The language is what it is, and it doesn't say "the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens". It says, for better or worse, "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." And personally I wish it weren't so broad too so don't assume I disagree with you. You're the one thinking you have a law degree, I'm only reiterating what's available to any American--the Constitution itself. Go have a drink or something...I like the fair tax though so you can't be all bad.
    Calm down there dr. Lets just say over time the citizenship issue has been challenged in court and in Congress. The Supreme Court first ruled in 1884 that it didn't apply to Indians. Then in 1898 they ruled in favor of granting citizenship to a Chinaman born in the US of legal residents but not citizens.

    'Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. An effort in 1997 failed in the face of intense political opposition from immigrant rights groups. Apparently, the question remains open to the determination of the political and legal processes." The Democrats all voted against it. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Gov...form/wm925.cfm

    Plus there is the issue of the legality of the radification process of the 14th Amendment. They don't teach that in history in school books anymore like they did in the 50's in the South.

    The interputation like I said is not set in concrete but is subject to political considerations. You talk like there is noting to argue about and no discussion is valid on the issue. I beg to differ. But apparently we do agree on a whole range of other issues.
    Last edited by glennac; 02-29-2008 at 08:36 PM.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
    DRC, historically, glenn is right. The 14th Amendment was written with children of slaves in mind.
    Anyone would agree that sure, the 14th was drafted by the Radical Republicans and pushed through the ratification process with the children of slaves as --rightly-- the original benefactors. However, when Congress intends to be specific about who benefits from passage of a certain amendment, they are, and when they want to broaden the scope of intent, they do that as well. It's never an accident of semantics. The 1st, 5th, 14th et. al. are examples of broad-stroke type amendments. On the other side and completely in the same historical context as the 14th, take the 15th, granting the right to vote unconditional notwithstanding creed, color or race. This is a perfect example of when Congress can be intentionally narrow: They left millions and millions of otherwise eligible, intelligent voters out because of their sex.

    And so, when glennac stated that, "the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to slaves who were born here of parents who were slaves and therefore not citizens", my answer was that if they had wanted Glenn's narrow interpretation to become the law of the land, believe me, this same group of drafters would've done so. They didn't, and we have to live with it as is. Section 5 (I'm assuming he meant section 5 of the 14th, and not 'section 5' of the constitution itself), can only be used to enforce the language as written, not reinterpret it, but rather re-clarify it down the road if there was an otherwise unsympathizing future political climate: Given the previous rebellion, Congress wanted specific powers of enforcement to compel some States' presumptive lethargic cooperation. All the reconstruction amendments have similar language as section 5 of the 14th.

    If we want to change the 14th, and narrow the naturalization allowances granted therein, we need a new amendment. Doing less then this only ensures that the guardians of the 14th as is--that is to say, the US Supreme Court--will demolish whatever limiting statute Congress comes up with. However, if the people amend the Constitution, this great and formidable group of men and women now have to protect that (future) amendment as well. The Supreme court, in other words, is not the enemy any more than a referee or umpire during a civil sporting event is the enemy of fun. Enlist them as allies by following the founding fathers protocols, draft an amendment, and they [I]have[I] to protect it from lower judicial and liberal statutory trespass. Follow due process. Don't just pass some cockimamy half-ass statute just to get face-time on TV crying about how the SP legislates from the bench when they find it contrary to Constitutional amendments they're entrusted with protecting.

    Since Washington seems so out of sync with the people's majority on this matter, there is a more grass roots method to initiate the ratification process: 2/3 of all the US states' assemblies vote to call a constitutional convention whereat new amendments could be proposed. Let's get out of the Civil war and into the 21st century. Otherwise you scare people off.

    Most first world countries around the world (Japan, Australia, Norway, Sweden, GB and the list goes on and on) require at least one parent to be a citizen before granting such to one's offspring. No one is saying close the doors--after all we're all immigrants unless we're Indian; just close the doors to people who elbow their way to the front of the line; quit the amnesty programs for one group of lawbreakers while "getting tough on crime" elsewhere Washington. Doing otherwise doesn't make us a more "compassionate" country, it simply makes our Congress look befuddled, adrift -- too worried about the perception of people who never elected them in the first place to the detriment of an already struggling middle class; not to mention completely misaligned with reason and logic given the finite amount of resources, both figurative and literal, we have in this country. My 2 cents of the day. Thank you for reading.
    Last edited by drcustom; 03-01-2008 at 08:58 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event