|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > Is the Constitution a "living document" |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member  ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The problem now, is that we have 12 to 20 million illegals in this country that are reproducing like rabbits, and banking on the 14th to make their children citizens, so they can reap the benefits of our system. Isn't it revolting that the SOB's can't speak freakin' English, but they know about the 14th amendment? Is there some copy of the Constitution translated into Spanish that we don't know about somewhere??? Pardon me while I go toss my lunch.  Last edited on 08:13 pm by UsedToRide  Respect some, trust one, fear none ~~Bullet A hundred criminals may be set free, but one innocent man should not go to prison, for that will make the entire system criminal ~Chief Justice T.L.Venkatraman |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: And, because of this interpretation, and the bleeding hearts in this country, we are stuck with a problem that has no solution. I don't think you're right on this, muddawber. This interpretation of the Constitution isn't the problem. If people wanted the 14th amendment to have a different interpretation, they'd just amend the Constitution. That's what amendments are for. The thing is, most people don't think it's reasonable to say that being born here isn't a valid measure of citizenship. English common law (on which our Constitution is based) since at least 1608 has granted birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether a person's legal status has any effect on the citizenship of their offspring. But I would be amazed if they decided that the children of illegal immigrants didn't have birthright citizenship, since that is the de facto way the government has been acting for so long. And I don't think they'll ignore the societal impact, either. What happens when all those parents suddenly lose support for their children? The odds that they'll just pack up and go home are very low.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: muddawber wrote:And, because of this interpretation, and the bleeding hearts in this country, we are stuck with a problem that has no solution. Brian, Please read this page carefully. I have posted this before, but read what the original intent of the amendment was, the quote by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, and also the 1884 Supreme Court ruling in the Elk vs Wilkins case.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: Brian wrote:muddawber wrote:And, because of this interpretation, and the bleeding hearts in this country, we are stuck with a problem that has no solution. Hi, Muddawber. I read that. You've pointed me to that page before.  A couple of comments on the page, specifically: Elk v. Wilkins dealt with Native Americans (with apologies to UTR for the term, since I don't know the tribe). The court ruled that since the newborn was born on a reservation, which was considered a separate nation, with its own jurisdiction, the newborn wasn't a U.S. citizen. (This has since been superseded by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.) Since the newborns we're talking about are born on U.S. territory (and not on a reservation) they're not subject to the same reasoning as was used in Elk v. Wilkins. The most closely paralleling case would be United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which stated that if a child is born in the U.S. to immigrants, that child is a citizen. As I said, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet specifically on whether or not the legal status of the parents has any bearing on the child's citizenship, but it looks to be leaning in the direction of granting them citizenship, if prior court rulings are any measure. And in fact, United States v. Wong Kim Ark specifically dealt with Mr. Howard's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Look at the words of Mr. Conness of California: The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form, (less the words "or naturalized,") and reading, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Mr. Cowan objected, upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded; and said: "Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" "I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit." Mr. Conness, of California, replied: "The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States." "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the [699] United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others." Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 4, pp. 2890-2892.Link
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes Brian, I recall we have had this very same discussion on the 14th amendment before, and we both walked away with the same convictions as when we started. It seems as though we are at the same impasse as before.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: Yes Brian, That's how I remember it, too. I just didn't want to abandon ship prematurely. 
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: muddawber wrote:Yes Brian, At least there was no blood shed over this my friend!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: Brian wrote:That's how I remember it, too. I just didn't want to abandon ship prematurely. I really don't see the need for viciousness in issues like these. People should be able to talk about ideas without taking things personally. These are the kinds of conversations I like the best. 
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: muddawber wrote:Brian wrote:That's how I remember it, too. I just didn't want to abandon ship prematurely. True. We can agree to disagree without cutting each other down. Thanks. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Outré Original500© Member  Red-headed stepchild
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote:Simple poll -- No it's not a "living document". What is implied by that seems ridiculous to me. As others before me here have said, it's a legal, fixed dodument. As far as interpretation goes my personal opinion is that the Constitution DOES NOT need to be interpreted as to what the authors said and meant. They wrote it - they meant it. Having studied it, and that means knowing what the authors meant WHEN they wrote it by looking up all of those hereunto and thereto(s) as well as; enumeration, writs, quorum, vest, ex post facto, emolument, Bill of Attainder, Duties, Imposts and Excises, etc., etc., I came to understand that the Consitution - as it stands - is a complete document and the only interpretation that needs to be done is how to apply what is written in the Constitution to modern life. Education is what is needed, not re-interpretion, Constitutional Conventions (for a re-write), or adding Amendments on and on ad nauseum. I'm of the personal opinion that it's every citizen's duty and responsiblity to understand the Constitution as it was written. Outré
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Outré wrote: sirlamre wrote: Very good point. The problem with a lot of people, is the lack of knowledge about what was going on prior to the Revolution, and the writting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They don't teach enough in schools today for students to understand. They only touch the surface, and kids only know that there was a war. When I was in school, seems like a hundred years ago, we spent at least a semester each year in this study. We had to memorize certain portions of the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, and then one by one stand in front of the class and recite it. I guess, growing up in the time I did, it was more important to know and understand these documents than it is today. I have said, and I will continue to say, that the Constitution is a legal document between the citizens of this country, and our government, and does don't grant individual rights to non citizens except in certain cases.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have said, and I will continue to say, that the Constitution is a legal document between the citizens of this country, and our government, and does don't grant individual rights to non citizens except in certain cases. I don't think it grants any rights to anyone. It assumes, as other founding documents indicate, that a free person inherently has them. The Constitution is all about limiting the abilities of the Federal Government. There was big debate and problems with listing the rights in the Bill of Rights. Many didn't want the list, main reason being that if you start listing rights, future people can interpret that to mean the ones NOT listed are NOT protected. That is why you see the 9th and 10th on the list, to address that type of concern. What won out was wanting the key ones mentioned to assure they are not messed with by a Fed. They are all about individual rights but the context is really limiting Government, not granting rights. We have way too many rights as free people to list, and no one or no institution has the right to take away our natural rights as free people. We just have a responsibility to vigilantly guard them, and the Constitution. I think we are gradually failing at that somewhat. Complacent perhaps, due to a lack of need to defend them. We don't have the revolutionary blood in us like we used to so to speak. That is why I think we see different things taught today, like you pointed out, mud. I learned a lot of history in school but none of the really important stuff, like what freedom costs and what the never-ending war over freedom is really all about. I agree with mud and Outre - more education is needed.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: I have said, and I will continue to say, that the Constitution is a legal document between the citizens of this country, and our government, and does don't grant individual rights to non citizens except in certain cases. I don't think it's accurate to say that we (or any human beings) inherently have rights. Rights are not inborn. They are fought for and defended. Before the Revolution, we had a certain amount of rights under British law by virtue of the fact that we were British subjects. After the Revolution, we had rights based on the Acts of Confederation, and later the Constitution. Without those documents, and the firepower to back them up, whatever rights we claim are indefensible. We have rights by virtue of a social contract, not by virtue of being human beings.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: 24HourNut wrote:I have said, and I will continue to say, that the Constitution is a legal document between the citizens of this country, and our government, and does don't grant individual rights to non citizens except in certain cases. I was specifying "free" people though. I was indicating people living under a system where the balance of power is with the People and their rights held paramount. The Constitution doesn't grant those rights, it recognizes and protects them. The main purpose of the Constitution is not to grant rights, it is to protect them by limiting Government from doing things that take them away. The Founders felt these rights came from nature, or Nature's God. That we have them before any Government comes along.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
