The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
11-05-2018, 09:21 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
more evidence than Kavanaugh:
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/court-...slapping-wife/
ill hold my breathe till the democrats demand he must resign...
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/court-...slapping-wife/
A resurfaced court document detailing a 1981 Family Court deposition sent to Big League Politics reveals Senator Tom Carper admitted to slapping his ex-wife in the face to the point where her eye bruised and swelled.
After weeks of rumors and speculation on social media, a Family Court deposition document reveals Tom Carper, a Democratic senator from Delaware, admitted to slapping his then wife to the point where it “caused some discoloration” of her eye and swelling. The incident occurred in in either the late 1970s or the early 1980s between Carper and his ex-wife, Diane Isaacs.
After weeks of rumors and speculation on social media, a Family Court deposition document reveals Tom Carper, a Democratic senator from Delaware, admitted to slapping his then wife to the point where it “caused some discoloration” of her eye and swelling. The incident occurred in in either the late 1970s or the early 1980s between Carper and his ex-wife, Diane Isaacs.
ill hold my breathe till the democrats demand he must resign...
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 09:34 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Ann Coulter - Official Home Page
I don't like to cite certain sources so people don't just immediately discard with fake news prejudices.
I don't like to cite certain sources so people don't just immediately discard with fake news prejudices.
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 10:22 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
The 14th is tricky, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't seen the sort of controversy that the 2nd has until recently.
If you're a constitutional literalist, then the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is important. To me, it's as murky as the Militia clause. My take is that if you interpret the 2nd as applying to the militia, then you need to interpret the 14th as applying to persons who are not subject to any foreign law (as would not be the child of parents who are citizens of a country other than the US.)
If you're an interpretationalist, then it's important to bear in mind that immigration to the US was in no way restricted when that was written, so it wasn't a relevant concern. At the same time, know that the 14th was intended to apply to recently freed slaves, and was specifically not applied to Native Americans (even those born within the boundaries of US states at the time), as they were considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe, which was considered a foreign government.
If you're a constitutional literalist, then the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is important. To me, it's as murky as the Militia clause. My take is that if you interpret the 2nd as applying to the militia, then you need to interpret the 14th as applying to persons who are not subject to any foreign law (as would not be the child of parents who are citizens of a country other than the US.)
If you're an interpretationalist, then it's important to bear in mind that immigration to the US was in no way restricted when that was written, so it wasn't a relevant concern. At the same time, know that the 14th was intended to apply to recently freed slaves, and was specifically not applied to Native Americans (even those born within the boundaries of US states at the time), as they were considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe, which was considered a foreign government.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 11-07-2018 at 02:18 AM.
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 10:37 AM
The 14th is tricky, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't seen the sort of controversy that the 2nd has until recently.
If you're a constitutional literalist, then the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is important. To me, it's as murky as the Militia clause. My take is that if you interpret the 2nd as applying to the militia, then you need to interpret the 14th as applying to persons who are not subject to any foreign law (as would be the child of parents who are citizens of a country other than the US.)
If you're an interpretationalist, then it's important to bear in mind that immigration to the US was in no way restricted when that was written, so it wasn't a relevant concern. At the same time, know that the 14th was intended to apply to recently freed slaves, and was specifically not applied to Native Americans (even those both within the boundaries of US states at the time), as they were considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe, which was considered a foreign government.
If you're a constitutional literalist, then the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is important. To me, it's as murky as the Militia clause. My take is that if you interpret the 2nd as applying to the militia, then you need to interpret the 14th as applying to persons who are not subject to any foreign law (as would be the child of parents who are citizens of a country other than the US.)
If you're an interpretationalist, then it's important to bear in mind that immigration to the US was in no way restricted when that was written, so it wasn't a relevant concern. At the same time, know that the 14th was intended to apply to recently freed slaves, and was specifically not applied to Native Americans (even those both within the boundaries of US states at the time), as they were considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe, which was considered a foreign government.
Further reading: The Federalist Blog
And for both sides of the argument, here's the ACS take on it. Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee and another 2011 article referencing a 1982 SC decision in "Plyler v. Doe": Born Under the Constitution: Why Recent Attacks on Birthright Citizenship are Unfounded
Last edited by bahurd; 11-05-2018 at 10:49 AM.
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 11:52 AM
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”
Was it just enacted for all but Natives? Were Natives more of a concern than incoming migrants at the time? or were they included after the 14th amendment because they were sovereign BUT already in US soil?
..If you're an interpretationalist, then it's important to bear in mind that immigration to the US was in no way restricted when that was written, so it wasn't a relevant concern. At the same time, know that the 14th was intended to apply to recently freed slaves, and was specifically not applied to Native Americans (even those both within the boundaries of US states at the time), as they were considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe, which was considered a foreign government.
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 12:17 PM
To clarify on my question, if there was a separate ACT to provide citizenship to Natives post 14th amendment when did the US actually started to provide to any and all births is US soil? ( the argument on Joe's second paragraph)
Was it just enacted for all but Natives? Were Natives more of a concern than incoming migrants at the time? or were they included after the 14th amendment because they were sovereign BUT already in US soil?
Was it just enacted for all but Natives? Were Natives more of a concern than incoming migrants at the time? or were they included after the 14th amendment because they were sovereign BUT already in US soil?
related: Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 12:29 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Natives were, at the time, considered to be subject to the laws of their tribe, rather than of the US, and so were not included. The tribes were considered to be semi-sovereign nations, separate from the US.
There were, at the time of the 14th, no real restrictions on incoming migrants, and the government was not in the business of providing social services. As such, it wasn't even an issue.
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 12:33 PM
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 12:41 PM
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 01:50 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Many of the same people who have been attacking the 2nd amendment for years, and more recently have been trying to curtail the 1st, are the same people arguing for an extremely broad reading of the 14th, and claiming birth-citizenship to be sacred and inviolate, even though that's not how the authors themselves interpreted it.
Unlike the 2nd amendment, we are fortunate to have an external opinion, written by the man who wrote the text of the 14th Amendment itself. Two years prior to the ratification of the amendment, its author, Senator Jacob Howard, wrote the following in remarks to Congress:
“[the amendment 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.”
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 02:02 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Precisely.
Many of the same people who have been attacking the 2nd amendment for years, and more recently have been trying to curtail the 1st, are the same people arguing for an extremely broad reading of the 14th, and claiming birth-citizenship to be sacred and inviolate, even though that's not how the authors themselves interpreted it.
Many of the same people who have been attacking the 2nd amendment for years, and more recently have been trying to curtail the 1st, are the same people arguing for an extremely broad reading of the 14th, and claiming birth-citizenship to be sacred and inviolate, even though that's not how the authors themselves interpreted it.
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 03:06 PM
Unlike the 2nd amendment, we are fortunate to have an external opinion, written by the man who wrote the text of the 14th Amendment itself. Two years prior to the ratification of the amendment, its author, Senator Jacob Howard, wrote the following in remarks to Congress:
“[the amendment 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.”
“[the amendment 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.”
Reply
0
0
11-05-2018, 03:10 PM
Reply
0
0
