Tags
14th Amendment, Eric Schmitt, Fascist pig, Fascist toady, missouri, right wingnut, social media, sycophant
“…These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship…”
Eric Schmitt (r) [2024 file photo].
Yesterday:
Eric Schmitt
[Januray 21, 2024]
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to address the Dred Scott case & extend citizenship to all races. It was not intended to give citizenship to “anchor babies” or illegals. Even Harry Reid admitted this. Biden’s open border crisis now requires us to speak more clearly about the constitution. President Trump is right to clarify.
[….]
Some of the responses:
And yet it says, “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 first sentence is clear and birthright citizen ship was common law prior to this Amendment. After the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Law of 1866 used this language as well. It seems likely that to change it would be by another Amendment., a complex process no matter how you do it.
[….] so MAGA has decided that they can destroy the 14th Amendment by claiming it was ONLY meant to reverse Dred Scott and Clause 1 is now unconstitutional. MAGA lives in abject terror of brown people
[….] it makes no mention of Dred Scott. I am sure the MAGA Supreme Court will decide that Clause 1 of the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. The already decided the women have no right to medical care and forced pregnancies are legal and the 1st half of the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional.
DONALD TRUMP IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, YOU GUYS ARE DUMB TOO.
Bigots being bigots
[….] you are okay with american citizens being stripped of their citizenship and sent to a country they have never been to?
What exactly are we afraid of here? Is this going to help with the cost of groceries? If you are cutting down on the border crossings, this should not be that big of a problem. Can we focus where Americans are actually hurting
[….] No we will focus on respect for the rule of law because we have principles and morals.
Why does that make you afraid?
Written without any sense of irony.
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check. Conviction. Check.
“Rule of law.” Heh.
[….] Trump has already said he can’t lower grocery prices. This is a diversion tactic designed to keep the xenophobic MAGA riled up.
Trump has already said he can’t lower grocery prices. This is a diversion tactic designed to keep the xenophobic MAGA riled up.
Yeah, with your nonsensical legal opinions. You traded in any legal accolades you had,long ago, to instead be a partisan hack. As proven by the millions of $$$ you wasted as our state Attorney General with all the nonsense lawsuits that got shut down by the court. Republican courts even!
An executive order cannot amend the Constitution.
Try again Counselor.
The hypocrisy is astounding. The party of “originalist Constitutional interpretation” all of a sudden wants some flexibility?
I would attempt to sway you with moral, humane, or economic arguments, but we know those don’t work. Maybe pointing out your hypocritical behavior will be a moment of enlightenment??
Do you understand the constitution? What kind of lawyer are you?
You are just taking a constitutional
amendment and throwing it out the window because your orange daddy says so? You really are submissive. Its really bad having the two useless senators.
In reality, only one. But Virginia has three.
Also, when are you gonna adress the Nazi salute that Elon Musk did?
Never. This has been another edition of Short Answers to Simple Questions.
How did you get through law school?
Maybe he should ask for his tuition money back.
Way to go! Fuck the 14th amendment! Also, drug prices are going up! And beating up cops gets you a presidential pardon! You guys are killing it!
OMG [….]
The first clause of the 14th Amendment:
Amendment XIV
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 U.S. Supreme Court addressed this over 100 years ago:
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)United States v. Wong Kim Ark
No. 18
Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
169 U.S. 649
[….]
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:“‘British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. ‘Permanent’ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes ‘temporary’ allegiance to the Crown. ‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
“1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [….] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.”
“2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.”
[….]
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and the converse of the words “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.
[….]
The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
[….]
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.
[….]
Action:
ACLU @aclu.org
We’re suing President Trump.The 14th Amendment is clear: People born in the United States are citizens. An executive order cannot override the Constitution.
[….]
January 21, 2025 at 12:06 PM
And:
