14th (9)

No Fly No Buy? 100% Unconstitutional

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/

It comes as no surprise at all, that in the aftermath of the Orlando Islamic terrorist nf-1.jpg?width=129attack…all liberals can talk about is taking guns away from law abiding citizens or making it hard, if not impossible in some cases, to even purchase a gun.

THAT, say the liberals, is the best way to defeat terrorism.

Ted Cruz had a slightly different perspective on the situation…

“You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away our guns. You defeat terrorism by using our guns,” – Ted Cruz.

All the liberals need, is an inch in order to take ten thousand miles and they are using the Islamic terrorism murders of 49 innocent civilians to push their insipid agenda.

Here’s how they intend to start…

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!

Read more…

Whoever Wins…the Constitution Loses

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/

Hillary Clinton, along with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Federal Records ht-1.jpg?width=186Keeping Act…along with her treason related to Benghazi and lies told to cover her ample, pant-suited ass…is also a vile and vicious anti-constitution freak show regarding our 2nd Amendment.

Before I get to her specific comments, allow me to ask anyone with a working brain cell…and the liberals without such…to tell us all just how effective the liberal gun control measures are working out for them.

Gun free zones? Really? The majority of mass shootings in this country take place in liberal induced gun free zones yet every time some liberal crackpot opens fire in a school or college, liberal numb-nuts rush to the nearest microphone or to their social media to demand more gun restrictions.

And gun restrictions and gun registrations…

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!

Read more…

The Jail for Jesus Movement is Coming Soon

By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net

mart-1.jpg?width=223They have been successful.

The far, FAR religious right, those driven by those who pretend to be Christians and Conservatives, have successfully, in their minds, fabricated a martyr out of a useful, liberal idiot…Kim Davis…and they now stand on their holier-than-thou island and claim Davis was jailed solely because of her religion. They claim she was persecuted…only because of her Christian beliefs…not prosecuted for her contempt and disorderly conduct as anyone would be had they done in court what she did there.

“Jailed for being a Christian,” they are saying…”Christianity now against the law,” they claim.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Christians are not being rounded up in this country. They’re not being kept from attending whichever branch of church they choose. Churches are not being shut down in our country and the people are still free to worship in their own way.

It’s not that way in other parts of the world but these holier-then-thou Christians, those laser focused on Davis, don’t give a damn. Christians MURDERED in other parts of the world…rounded up, burned alive, shot…hanged, nailed to crosses, raped, tortured, beheaded and all just for being Christians…but where ARE those who have stood…loud and proud…for the woman who refuses to issue a marriage license in the face of all of that, from other parts of the world where there really IS a war on Christianity going on?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!

Read more…

By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net

kd-1.jpg?width=262When my Right Side Patriots radio partner and friend, Diane Sori and I wrote and published yesterday’s article, “First Amendment Held Hostage in Kentucky,” I had no intention of writing a follow-up article but, considering the comments received after yesterday’s article…I felt compelled to address a few things which some folks out there just refuse to grasp.

Far too many of the holier-than-thou religious Conservatives out there, and one can only guess from some talking points memo, are feigning ignorance which makes them appear foolish…their top question has been…”What law did this woman, Davis, break to be sent to jail?”

That of course was followed by an often repeated, in nearly the exact same wording…”What law did congress pass making gay marriage legal?” And the direct talking points memo statement of…”She’s in jail for her beliefs…not for breaking any law,” was another oft repeated comment being made so…let me make this clear for the terminally religious fabricaters of spin out there…

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!

Read more…

First Amendment Held Hostage in Kentucky

By: Craig Andresen and Diane Sori / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media / www.cprworldwidemedia,net

“I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail, I sure am…this has never been davis-10.jpg?width=220a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.” – Kim Davis, the woman who has made herself the flag bearer for the anti-gay marriage issue

Diversions…deflections…and all modes of roadblocks for a woman who’s been turned into a martyr by the religious far right as she, a civil servant, used her personal religious beliefs as a weapon of sorts to stop others…in this case a same-sex couple…from accessing their now SCOTUS awarded Constitutionally given legal right to civilly marry.

Now please understand before we go forward that this co-written article in no way is an attack on Christianity nor on anyone’s personal beliefs, know that we both are straight, and that we both are believers in the one true living God of the Christians and the Jews.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!

Read more…

"Birthright Citizenship": Politics v Rule of Law

 

We've all heard or read the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called "anchor babies" born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn't constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we've strayed from the Constitution. 

Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.

By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period".  Poppycock! He couldn't have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.

That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

Here are my findings and conclusions:

First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny anchor babies citizenship. In short, I was unable to find convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—in order to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.

Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to amend section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed.

Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “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.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.

Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process), be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “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", thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the childand not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

In US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. But note that in this case the parents were, unlike illegal entrants, legally present.

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a clear, unambiguous definition by declaring that “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.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconciously, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—appeared in this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.

Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.

 

Read more…

By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net

scd-11.jpg?width=272The sun did indeed rise in the east this morning regardless of the ruling by the Supreme Court that same sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states and I drove around town yesterday…AFTER the ruling…and failed to notice even one pillar of salt.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supremes decided that the same LEGAL standing…the same LEGAL protections and the same LEGAL benefits are to be extended to same sex married couples as are extended to opposite sex married couples.

It’s not the end of the world though you might have a different impression if you browse social media posts which include everything from the sky is falling to this is the end of our nation and the end of times.

Equal protection under the law has always been a hallmark of our Constitution and of our country although there are obviously some out there who believe those equal protections should extend only to those exactly like them.

Among those who are most distressed over the ruling are those who claim that this is an assault on religious freedom.

They are wrong in that interpretation as the ruling says nothing regarding nor does it interfere in any with religious precepts, religious doctrines or religious interpretations regarding marriage.

I’ll get back to that point shortly but before I do…

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!

Read more…

4063683733?profile=original      Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

( click to read more )

Read more…

4063664531?profile=original            America’s Abortion may end with North Dakota Personhood Law

History may mark February 7th as the day that Personhood for the unborn was established. This is the day that provided the unborn at conception the God given right to life bestowed upon all since the beginning of creation. This is a significant step in the continuing evolution of sanctioning the protection of life which has been riddled by abortion rights activists since the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Forty years and 55 million plus deaths of the unborn who committed no crime except to be conceived in God’s image were murdered. This was accomplished because of a court and society that would protect a tree frog’s existence above a human life. These murders may soon be put to a stop with the North Dakota Personhood Measure that passed in the State Senate. When it is established that a fetus has U.S. 14th Amendment constitutional protection, abortion ends in America!

Often times in the history of monumental movements, they often have their genesis in the hearts and souls of the faithful who are unwilling to witness or permit the undoing of basic rights. The aptly named Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative would codify the constitutional protections and absolute rights afforded all citizens of North Dakota and equally apply them to human embryos.

This is not just a momentary battle that supporters of life will wait to see what will happen in North Dakota’s House. The fact is that, in North Dakota as well as other states that are considering Personhood laws; the war for life should and can be won on the local battleground of state turf. These legislators, unlike their federal congressional counterparts, are not afraid to stand up to protect their religious values and principles, under the heat of unceasing liberal mass media contempt.

At the very core of the right to life is the imbalance that exists in continuing to treat the right to exist and to be born as incidental and given no more value than extinguishing the life of a common earth worm. The rights of the mother is given weight not as the carrier of life, but the right to her privacy to do as she pleases, which includes state sanctioned murder.

Yet for forty years the growing tearful cries of fathers who will never be, and mothers who are now filled with regret because of abortion. Their mournful regret is coupled with birthrights of the unborn, sheered away by abortion clinics.

( click to read more )

Read more…