Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree41Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 17th, 2015, 06:05 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,884
Judge Napolitano distorts 14th Amendment on FoxNews regarding birthright Citizenship

See: Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution
8/17/15

”Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.”


Why FoxNews allows this propaganda to go unchallenged is suspect to say the least! Let us look at some historical facts.


We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.


In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court affirms the Court’s opinion in the Slaughter-House cases:

”Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country”


'”This section 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”

So why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“?

The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down

“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 “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
…he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

So why is FoxNews allowing Judge Napolitano's distortions to go unchallenged?

JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

johnwk is offline  
Old August 17th, 2015, 07:02 PM   #2
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Surprised a Napolitano.



Thanks from caconservative
excalibur is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 02:12 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,957
Who should I believe, a real judge or an internet "expert", who is wrong about nearly everything.....
Thanks from RNG and Hollywood
goober is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 03:06 AM   #4
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
This FAUX BLUES judge is usually a nut case who interprets the Constitution in a very political biased way. But, he's right about this one. The Right had a better chance winning the gay marriage legal debate than they have winning this one. If you are born in the U.S., you are a U.S. citizen and that's not going to change.
Camelot is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 03:19 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Who should I believe, a real judge or an internet "expert", who is wrong about nearly everything.....
You ought to believe the documented facts when they are presented to you. Apparently you don't.

JWK
Thanks from imaginethat
johnwk is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 03:21 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
This FAUX BLUES judge is usually a nut case who interprets the Constitution in a very political biased way. But, he's right about this one. .
Why is he right?


JWK
johnwk is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 03:23 AM   #7
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Why is he right?


JWK
Case law and precedence. You don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Camelot is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 03:25 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Why is he right?


JWK
Because his opinion and reality overlap, whereas your's doesn't, despite all your legal acumen and researched positions and citing of precedents, a child born on US soil is a natural born American, if it's parents are not credentialed foreign diplomats. That's how it works, in the real world.
Thanks from Camelot
goober is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 04:25 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
There is no case law or precedent to support his statements.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 18th, 2015, 04:59 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Case law and precedence. You don't have a legal leg to stand on.
You offer another opinion unsupported by any documentation. Where is your documentation from the debates of the 39th Congress to support your notions?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
johnwk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
14th, aliens, amendment, birthright, citizenship, deport, distorts, foxnews, judge, napolitano, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 and anchor babies kbear Immigration 62 December 31st, 2014 02:21 PM
2nd Amendment Extremists Lose As Judge Upholds Two Colorado Gun Laws skews13 Current Events 3 June 28th, 2014 05:58 PM
The 14th Amendment and Gun Rights excalibur Current Events 1 May 7th, 2013 06:53 PM
THe Five MInute Speech that Got Judge Andrew Napolitano Fired from Fox News Business Radicalcentrist Current Events 28 June 16th, 2012 05:50 AM
Opinion: Ditch the 14th Amendment? Why stop there? CNN Current Events 6 August 6th, 2010 09:36 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.