How come???

lilyvon schtupp

Sodomy for Hire, Solicting for Immoral Purposes
I love guns.
I don't own one, but if I did I wouldn't give it up easily.
But how come the "right" is so adam ant about not changing the constitution when it comes to gun laws but more than gung ho to change the 14th amendment when it comes to citizenship?
 

dracula

Did yer mom...then she made me a sammich!!!
Please explain this change you are speaking about?...is it the one where the Left has bastardized the meaning of the 14th amendment...let's look at it...

Us Constitution, 14th Amendment...
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The highlighted portion is the most important....A citizen of another country is not subject(citizen) of this country. This Amendment was specifically about freed slaves, making the freed slaves citizens. At the time of it's passage, it pertained only to slaves. The Supreme Court, in various activist rulings, extended this to others. Why do I say activist?..because by virtue of their rulings, law was made. And only the Congress can enact laws. Says so in The Constitution. No where does it say illegal immigrants can come here, squirt out a baby, and stay because of that. Sucking the life out of State and Federal Medicare programs. I believe there is a line to be drawn. Other countries do not let this happen. Where is the outrage about those countries?...but those countries are run by Liberal/Socialists....


 

viking80fan

One of the remaining few!
Please explain this change you are speaking about?...is it the one where the Left has bastardized the meaning of the 14th amendment...let's look at it...

Us Constitution, 14th Amendment...


The highlighted portion is the most important....A citizen of another country is not subject(citizen) of this country. This Amendment was specifically about freed slaves, making the freed slaves citizens. At the time of it's passage, it pertained only to slaves. The Supreme Court, in various activist rulings, extended this to others. Why do I say activist?..because by virtue of their rulings, law was made. And only the Congress can enact laws. Says so in The Constitution. No where does it say illegal immigrants can come here, squirt out a baby, and stay because of that. Sucking the life out of State and Federal Medicare programs. I believe there is a line to be drawn. Other countries do not let this happen. Where is the outrage about those countries?...but those countries are run by Liberal/Socialists....


A citizen of another country is not subject(citizen) of this country.
Drac is right in making this statement. We cannot subject our laws on other citizens, but we can enact laws on our citizens if they are on our soil. While you or I are visiting other countries, we are to stand by the laws of other countries, not necessarily that of the U.S. But, I still do not understand why the Supreme Court is making "activist" decisions, when their job is strictly to interpret the law in regards to the U.S. Constitution. The laws that follow after those decisions are the responsibility of the Legislative Branch. The "activist" is the individual that interprets the law differently from what a constituent believes to be morally wrong.

Drac also refers to the Anchor Babies sucking the resources of the U.S.. While the parents should not benefit from those resources, because I believe they are illegal immigrants, the child is a United States Citizen and we should take care of it as such.

But the parents have to make the decision of staying in the U.S. illegally or leave to their original country with the baby, which is now a U.S. Citizen. That child should be welcomed to come to the U.S. when it finally decides to leave the parents. But if the parents do decide to stay, then they are here illegally, and I will not feel sorry for them when they have to make the decision of leaving or taking the child with them. Plus, if the child is living in another country, even though it is U.S. Citizen, it should not be allowed to collect any benefits.

The anchor baby issue goes back to the illegal immigration argument. Illegal immigrants are crossing the border illegally to give birth to their babies. I cannot argue against that. It is happening. While the 14th Amendment was established to protect the slaves, I do believe that this is another Amendment or another clause in the Constitution that is quickly becoming obsolete due to the era we now live in.

How do you alleviate the problem? Deport without regard. Do not allow the parents to stay, if they are here illegally, disregarding whether or not the children are U.S. Citizens. When the children become adults and want to come back to U.S. soil, they have the right to do that.

Why not pass a law that says that the child is automatically a U.S. Citizen if both or one of the parents is a U.S. Citizen? Why not explicitly state that if the parents are here illegally or are resident aliens, then they have to petition for the child to be a U.S. Citizen? Because there is always the possibility that the High Court could strike down the law as unconstitutional. So, if changing the 14th Amendment to state what I mentioned above, I would not object to it.

For those that may be against the child retaining the U.S. Citizenship, if they go back with their parents to the country of origin, there are so many details in the Immigration and Nationality Act that could cause the child to rescind their U.S. Citizenship involuntarily. If you really do not want that child to retain U.S. citizenship then enforce it harshly.

I am going to restrict my comment to the 14th Amendment, but there other amendments that we shall consider changing, including the 2nd.
 

dracula

Did yer mom...then she made me a sammich!!!
I still do not understand why the Supreme Court is making "activist" decisions, when their job is strictly to interpret the law in regards to the U.S. Constitution.
When the courts make a decision and something or someone is allowed to do or not do something that is not specifically described by statute, then it is an activist decision.
 

viking80fan

One of the remaining few!
When the courts make a decision and something or someone is allowed to do or not do something that is not specifically described by statute, then it is an activist decision.
Then the whole judicial system is filled with activists. The Judicial Branch cannot make laws; they are responsible for interpreting them according to the Law of the Nations (Constitution). You cannot say that if they make a decision either way they are being activist. It is a label that the right likes to place on judges that make decisions they do not like.
 

dracula

Did yer mom...then she made me a sammich!!!
Almost....they are using a Democrat concept..if the law doesn't say you can't, then you can, and vica versa. It's one of the problems the Left has with all laws. If it's not specifically prohibited, then they believe they can do it. The Constitution specifically states what the Gov't can and can't do. There are no grey areas.
 

lilyvon schtupp

Sodomy for Hire, Solicting for Immoral Purposes
if this is a democrat concept, then what is the republican one?
I'd rather not fuck around with the constitution, it sets a bad precedent.
aside from prohibition which was stricken from the document so quickly....
the 14th's been around over 100 years
 

dracula

Did yer mom...then she made me a sammich!!!
Republican's believe if the Constitution doesn't say the Gov't can do something, then they can't.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to stop DEMOCRATS from enacting laws so freed slaves could not become citizens. They tried, REPUBLICANS stopped them with this amendment.

Where it has become bastardized is people illegally entering this country and having babies. The 14th was not intended for this purpose.
 

viking80fan

One of the remaining few!
Republican's believe if the Constitution doesn't say the Gov't can do something, then they can't.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to stop DEMOCRATS from enacting laws so freed slaves could not become citizens. They tried, REPUBLICANS stopped them with this amendment.
Drac, you cannot compare the 19th Century Republican and Democratic Parties to today's Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively. Politically, we are talking about two very different eras. At that time, the Dixies were trying to satisfy the South to remain in Congress. The Republicans sided with Lincoln. The tables are dramatically reversed these days.

Today, the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to stop REPUBLICANS from denying citizenship to those born in U.S. soil, whereas, the DEMOCRATS are trying to uphold the 14th Amendment.
 

lilyvon schtupp

Sodomy for Hire, Solicting for Immoral Purposes
amen to that viking!
 

dracula

Did yer mom...then she made me a sammich!!!
<large sigh>...The Republicans are trying to stop the Democrats from gaining access to millions more people who should not be able to vote, but will any way .
 

viking80fan

One of the remaining few!
<large sigh>...The Republicans are trying to stop the Democrats from gaining access to millions more people who should not be able to vote, but will any way .
<even larger sigh> Are you saying the illegals are going to vote, or the U.S. Citizens from the illegal immigrants?
 

dracula

Did yer mom...then she made me a sammich!!!
Are you saying the illegals are going to vote, or the U.S. Citizens from the illegal immigrants?
This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Pay attention...the Democrats are doing everything they can to get laws changed to let anyone vote. Remember the Libs, via the ACLU, getting thier panties in a bunch over states requiring ID's to vote?? Calling it racism and disenfranchisement...Trying to get States to drop those requirements? What else can it be for. The Libs have such a hard-on for being in Power so they can tell people what to do and run every aspect of your life they can, they don't give a shit over who votes them into power, as long as they do.
 

viking80fan

One of the remaining few!
This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Pay attention...the Democrats are doing everything they can to get laws changed to let anyone vote. Remember the Libs, via the ACLU, getting thier panties in a bunch over states requiring ID's to vote?? Calling it racism and disenfranchisement...Trying to get States to drop those requirements? What else can it be for. The Libs have such a hard-on for being in Power so they can tell people what to do and run every aspect of your life they can, they don't give a shit over who votes them into power, as long as they do.
Timeout. I would like to know what bills are being introduce in the U.S. Congress that are going to allow anyone to vote without proof of identification.

The ACLU are like the tea-parties, bitch about everything. I do not take them too seriously. Unless, like the tea-party, they start influencing primaries. The ACLU is classic for labeling everything "racist."

I did not say I was in favor of illegal immigrants voting; I simply was stating that the 14th Amendment guarantee every U.S. Citizen the right to vote. U.S. Citizen does not equal illegal immigrant. If your point is that the Libs are calling for illegal immigrants to vote, would not that be illegal?
 

lilyvon schtupp

Sodomy for Hire, Solicting for Immoral Purposes
drac?
you don't want citizens to be able to vote?
 
Top Bottom