THE US CONSTITUTIONS 14TH AMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY CITIZENSHIP FOR ALL. THERE IS NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IT IS A SHAM
Since so many disagree, what's needed is congressional action to define it. As I understand it, the 14th Amendment under Section 5 says that, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." I believe that may be the means by which anchor baby status can be abolished. That is also why holding on to the House is so vitally important.
One problem Roberto,
The Republican Party holds some of the House, the Democrats hold the Senate, the old saying Drain The Swamp has gotten so old, people just look at the words and say, we are still waiting!!!!!!!!!!
A lot of Republicans need to be Drained with the Democrat Party.
So I am just saying, if some within both parties want Illegal Imagination, its time to lock in their names and plaster it on the bathroom walls if we have to. Other then this, I do not see this going no where, sorry.......
I agree that there're a lot of Republicans who need to go. They seem to be more concerned about maintaining the status quo rather than daring to restore the CENTRAL government to a republican form of government constrained by the Constitution.
However, let me mention, at this time In the House there're 237 Republicans and 197 Democrats. In the Senate there're 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and and 2 Independents, who both caucus with the Democrats. That means the Republicans control both Houses of Congress.
Right now the GOP could pass a law clearing up the issue of birthright citizenship as Clause 5 of the 14th Amendment seems to allow Congress that power. But will they have the courage and integrity to do so? Sadly, I doubt it.
GOP, can not do nothing without a Convention Of States, and I am not talking about a Article V.
These laws have been on the books for so long they are gathering dust. And every new Imagination Law to be passed was by the Republicans. Even One real good one. All of them are waiting for the Dems to take office again, so they can undo all that Trump did.
If they dump birthright citizenship, it will just get amended back in.
So how to Enforce this with Constitutional Laws and make it, Treason to touch it???
There are two (2) legal arguments against Birthright Citizenship for illegal aliens and legal aliens here on temporary Visas... One Constitutional argument is that the US Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. Therefore there is no legal status for illegal aliens or those here legally on temporary visas to seek birthright citizenship under any provision of the US Constitution. The second, is that the 14th Amendment never extended Birthright Citizenship to illegal aliens or those legal aliens here on temporary visas.
Giving a hearing to Globalist and Progressives seeking open borders and universal citizenship to their cause ignores the simple reading of the US Constitution and the Supreme Courts duty to rule on this issue...
The President may bring this issue to the forefront... by issuing an Executive Orde (EO)... which denies the unlawful extension of Birthright Citizenship to the children of illegal aliens... That EO would likely bring a court challenge by the Marxist/Globalist in both Political Parties, as they attempt to get the Courts... to, estblish a right that doesn't exist. Birthright citizenship, for illegal aliens, here illegally or legally via temporary visas... vacation, student, work, diplomatic, etc.
We all ready know all of this and even more then we have shared, I personally have been reviewing a file, and its a wing dingier of a file.
So how to share it, is even more interesting, news to be shared.
Colonel, the SCOTUS ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the US whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory." Therein continues the legal confusion over the issue.
I'd like to see the SCOTUS not only abolish anchor baby status but also definitively define what constitutes Natural Born Citizenship status.
The US Supreme Court is not constitutionally permitted to amend the constituiton in the course of ruling on the law...The application of Supreme Court findings doesn't extend to making new law or revising existing law. It reamins up to Congress to change the law... too, agree with the US Supreme Court's decisions, by taking their findings under advisement, and as necessary to change the Statutes or Amend the Constitution, to conform to the Supreme Court's findings.
If Congress fails to act on the US Supreme Courts findings... it automatically signals it doesn't agree with them and the Courts findings are moot... apply only to the case at hand. Stari Decisis is not law nor should it continue to be treated as law... it is the findings of the Court based on a specific case in law and no more.
The clear and simple reading of the Constitjution makes it plain for whom the Constituiton is written and to whom it applies... It was written for Americans (US Citizens) not Aliens... legal or lillegal.
The US Supreme Court has made many rulings outside their jurisdiction or perview... their rulings need to be reviewed and prooerly applied by Congress. The Constitution doesn't extend its jurisdiction or protections to ILLEGAL ALIENS... The United States provides Aliens in the Country legally extension of Constitutional protection by statutory law. Congress has said it takes Naturalization to become a citzen, too accrue the protections of the US Constituiton.
I don't believe that our founders intended gave Citizenship rights to anyone who arrived on our soil... legally or lillegally. I believe they gave Congress and the President the power to deal with naturalizaiotn and the administration of law while Aliens are here legally and illegally.... the Constituiton doesn't automatically immure to Aliens.
Colonel, you've hit the nail on the head in your last 2 points. As a conservative constitutional scholar once wrote, modern constitutional law has little or nothing to do with the Constitution.That's due to the concept that Stare Decisis and Case Law are almost sacrosanct.
So what are we conservative constitutionalists to do? Should we revolt with each ruling we disagree with? What happens if someone like McCain, Cruz, Haley, Rubio, or Jindal, all of whom have been called ineligible by some, gets elected president? Should we disobey them (especially if we're government employees or military) or call for their elimination as some did with Mr. (intentional) Obama?
Also, what of the constitutional law concept of the Incorporation Doctrine? Do the first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights, apply to the States? Under the doctrine the 14th Amendment provides Americans with a broad definition of their undeniable rights, especially the Due Process Clause. It recognizes a series of substantive due process rights. The Clause simply forced the States to respect all legal rights established in the Constitution. Were the SCOTUS Decisions of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) and Gitlow vs. New York (1925) improperly decided cases? So is the Incorporation Doctrine valid or was it an over extension of federal power through the SCOTUS?
Unfortunately, I believe we're at a crisis made by both parties and tremendously exacerbated by the Left, especially since the time of Pres. Wilson. The question is, do we really want a democratic (very small d) REPUBLIC under the rule of honest Constitutional Law with a free market capitalist economy or not. That's why I favor an Article V Convention despite the risks to restore the Constitution to its rightful role, especially Article 1, Section 8 which limits the role of the federal government and the Bill of Rights.
We are in agreement Roberto... the Pettifoggers have made a mess of it and the SCOTUS operating alone may not be able to correct it... Humpty, dumpty sat on a wall and had a great fall and all the kings men and horses can not out Humpty, Dumpty together again....
The United States has major problems with the applicaton of legal decisions made by the courts... The Courts findings should never be substituted for statutory or Constitutional law... Stari Decisis should not be considered law... let alone 'settled law'. The Courts decisions are simply findings of the facts and law as applied to a specific case and where the courts find the law in error... it is up to Congress to act not the Courts.
Congress must act when it is found that they have leglistation needing correction... if they fail to act, then the Courts are chided and rebuked by Congress's silence... When Congress acts, to amend the law, in compliance with the findings of the Court, Congress then concurrs with the Court.
We must insist that the Congress legislate... not the Courts. Otherwise, we grant to much power to the unelected judiciary and their cohorts the pettifoggers. Stari Decisis must not be the basis for administering the laws of the United States. Case law may inform the courts but not the law... It must not become law.