[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Restoring the 10th Amendment
Restoring the 10th Arrangement
Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Congressman John Culberson (R- Texas). One of the basic responsibilities of the executive branch is to execute the law faithfully. The Obama Administration, however, has no problem ignoring this duty to create its own rules. Instead of working with Congress on substantive, collaborative legislation, the president has routinely opted to govern by decree, empowering bureaucrats at the expense of the democratic process. His misguided approach puts partisan politics – not the will of the people – at the forefront of decision-making in Washington. Our reasons for introducing the “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” stem from serious concerns about the administration’s power grabs. One of the Constitution’s most comprehensive protections is the 10th Amendment, which puts a clear limit on the federal government’s reach. Ratified on December 15, 1791, it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Despite these constitutional protections, our personal lives and state authority continue to be affected by federal oversteps. Like many individuals and businesses, we are frustrated by Washington’s red tape and sweeping bureaucratic authority. The president’s big-government agenda lacks transparency and accountability, intruding into our households, businesses, schools, and churches in alarming ways. The 2,700-page health-care law is a prime example of costly government interference, prompting the rise of health-care premiums and cancellations of insurance coverage. The same is true for onerous carbon dioxide rules that hurt U.S. energy independence and ultimately Americans’ wallets. Many of the president’s executive actions have ended up in the courts because of their overwhelming scope. Earlier this year, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction to block the president’s immigration plan until it can be settled in court. More than two-dozen states, including our home states of Mississippi and Texas, have joined the lawsuit against the administration, claiming that the immigration overhaul is a costly and burdensome violation of states’ rights. Our Founding Fathers foresaw the danger of unchecked federal power. In the Constitution, they set forth guiding principles to protect limited government in the new republic. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th Amendment, was added to allay fears that individual freedoms could be curtailed by federal encroachment.
One wonders what our Founding Fathers would think of Washington today. The onslaught of regulations and executive orders from the Obama administration has chipped away at the 10th Amendment’s division of power, putting more control in bureaucratic hands than that of the people or the states. This executive overreach hardly reflects James Madison’s writings in The Federalist, which noted that the Constitution granted “few and defined” powers to the federal government and left “numerous and indefinite” power to the states. As elected officials, members of Congress have a responsibility to challenge excessive executive action, upholding the Constitution’s time-tested system of checks and balances. We believe the 10th Amendment is integral to this responsibility and the preservation of limited power. Our “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would give state government officials special standing in court to dispute regulations and executive orders proposed by a federal agency or the President. In other words, states would have the tools to push back against violations of the 10th Amendment, helping to restore individual liberty and limit the size, power, and cost of the federal government. For the past six years, the Obama administration has used executive measures to score partisan wins on controversial issues. This tactic denies Americans the right to open and transparent debate, one of the core elements of a functioning democracy. The “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would be an important step toward restoring accountability, protecting the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and reining in the federal government. Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-32) not displayed.
First, --- you tell me the meaning of person in the Constitution. No, not untill you explain what would be the point of doing so.
Second, I just proved the contention that people meant the States as you claimed more than once is inaccurate. You may think you proved something, but I doubt it.
Do you not understand what We The People of The United States means, the very first words of the U.S. Constitution? To who were the Founding Fathers referring? Themselves? The States? Explain to me to who the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights accure. The individual States? The people of the respective States? Or to the People of the U.S. collectively, whether a citizen or not?
Sorry, but your multi question demand will not be answered tonite.. Give me a day or so to write the multi-thousand word book length reply.
Third, it must be very tiring going that far you your asses to pull out the nonesense you are trying to peddle.
The only nonsense here is the pointless generalities you've posted so far.
Fourth, the plain simple truth is none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation. Finally! - A specific opinion about what you think of our constitution and its framers.. Where did you come up with such a bizarre interpretation?
Fifth, at least one of you is a total disingenous idiot in pretending not to know that Executive and Legislative Branches, partically the Executive, starting pushing the limits of their respective authorities under the Constitution virtually from day one of Washington's presidency. It's incredible that all that dolt can do is continue to babble horse crap of not making a point when I have made it crystal clear and will do again below. I'm holding my breath for 'the point'...
Perhaps both of you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions. That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested? -- Weird reasoning, and you're right, I can't understand it..
Historically it has been the Executive Office that has pushed the boundardies, but not exclusively. And guess what, when there was no push back voila the power that was claimed de facto became constitutional. That is an indisputable fact of how we got to where we are today, i.e. an ever more poweful and unchecked Imperial Presidency, an ever more powerful and unchecked Federal government, the ever diminishing power of the States, and, ever changing, redefinition of individual rights. Well, I asked for specifics, and you finally gave them. Now I just have to figure out how to formulate a reasonable response to an unreasonable theory. --- Maybe tomorrow..
#34. To: nolu chan (#32)
Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #35. To: tpaine (#33) Perhaps both of you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions. Not how its tested but what is tested. Man are you dense. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #36. To: buckeroo (#29)
The collective people of the United States did not draft or ratify the Constitution. Contemporary US politicians do not truthfully remark much at all. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period. They lie. Shocker! There has never been a national referendum to decide anything. Whether to elect a president or to amend the Constitution, the people act, and can only act, as States. Only 12 states even participated in the Constitutional Convention. Only 11 states ratified before Washington was inaugurated. Only 10 states participated in the electoral college. There was no popular vote. There were a few more presidential elections with no popular vote. There is no individual right to vote for president. It is up to the State legislatures to designate how the election is done. The State can change its laws and go back to having the State legislature select the delegates for the Electoral College. The people of the United States have no power to do anything as one big consolidated political community.
#37. To: tpaine (#33) Sorry, but your multi question demand will not be answered tonite.. Give me a day or so to write the multi-thousand word book length reply. LMAO. That's very Linconesque of you. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #38. To: SOSO (#34) Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death. No. It is long past time for you to answer questions.
#39. To: SOSO (#35) -- you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions.
That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested?
Not how its tested but what is tested.
That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested? -- Or by what is tested?
Man are you dense. Man, are you pedantic.
#40. To: SOSO (#37) Sorry, but your multi question demand will not be answered tonite.. Give me a day or so to write the multi-thousand word book length reply.
LMAO. That's very Linconesque of you. Your gullibility aside, thanks for the compliment..
#41. To: nolu chan (#38) Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death. Stop playing games. You know quite well that you can't defend your answer as the Constitution does not define person at all. The best we can do is to infer what the FF meant by the term in the context of specific usage, which opens the door wide to interpretation and assumptions. Confounding the issue us that sometimes person is spelled with an upper case p and sometimes a lower case p. It is long past time for you to answer questions. Ask away. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #42. To: tpaine (#39) Or by what is tested? "Washington believed he had to act. He and his cabinet members met with Pennsylvania officials. They decided to present evidence of the violence to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson. After reviewing the evidence, Wilson certified that the situation could not be controlled by civil authorities alone. A military response could proceed." "The Whiskey Rebellion also occupies a distinguished place in American jurisprudence. Serving as the backdrop to the first treason trials in the United States, the Whiskey Rebellion helped delineate the parameters of this constitutional crime. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the United States. During the trials of the two men convicted of treason, Circuit Court Judge william paterson instructed the jury that "levying war" includes armed opposition to the enforcement of a federal law." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #43. To: tpaine (#42) If you have the stomach, learn some more. "The first test of the strength of the government founded on the new Constitution was made in Pennsylvania, in 1794, by a rebellion against the payment of the excise tax.". The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of the Consitution and it was done by GW in person. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #44. To: SOSO (#42) (Edited) That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested? -- Or by what is tested?
Try to learn something. --- "Washington believed he had to act. He and his cabinet members met with Pennsylvania officials. They decided to present evidence of the violence to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson. After reviewing the evidence, Wilson certified that the situation could not be controlled by civil authorities alone. A military response could proceed.
There you go again, pasting up the above link, pretending you've made some sort of point. Boy, are you dense.
If you have the stomach, learn some more. --- "The first test of the strength of the government founded on the new Constitution was made in Pennsylvania, in 1794, by a rebellion against the payment of the excise tax.". The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of the Consitution and it was done by GW in person So? What exactly do you imagine you're proving?
#45. To: SOSO, tpaine (#30)
Third, it must be very tiring going that far you your asses to pull out the nonesense you are trying to peddle. Speaking of which, I suggest you back up fifty paces, sprint forward as fast as you can, do a triple somersault and disappear up your own ass. May the force be with you and thank you for your cooperation.
#46. To: SOSO, tpaine (#30) First, as soon as you tell me the meaning of person in the Constitution. Already done. #32.
Second, I just proved the contention that people meant the States as you claimed more than once is inaccurate. Saying you proved something is not the same as proving it. You are proving you can give a reasonable impression of yukon. States are the political communities of the United States. The people of the United States are the citizens of the states. When Washington was inaugurated, it was eleven political communities known as states.
Do you not understand what We The People of The United States means, the very first words of the U.S. Constitution? To who were the Founding Fathers referring? Themselves? The States? The Founding Fathers were not addressing anyone. The Constitution was drafted by the Framers in 1787, not the Founders. They were the citizens of the thirteen states. The thirteen separate political communities were connected together by the Articles of Confederation.
By a "state," I mean a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit to enjoy peaceably what is their own and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 455 (1793)
"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 463 (1793)
thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 463 (1793)
There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 473 (1793) All the people of one state are the state. U.S. Supreme Court, 9 Wheat. 187 (1824)
As preliminary to the very able discussions of the Constitution which we have heard from the bar, and as having some influence on its construction, reference has been made to the political situation of these States anterior to its formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true.
The States? Explain to me to who the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights accure. Tom, Dick and Harry. And Jane.
Fourth, the plain simple truth is none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation. Gee, if nobody knew what anything meant, not even the people who wrote it, how did it create a binding agreement? Is that the words living constitution that you are trying to channel?
If you somehow adopt a philosophy that the Constitution itself is not static, but rather, it morphs from age to age to say whatever it ought to say — which is probably whatever the people would want it to say — you've eliminated the whole purpose of a constitution. And that's essentially what the 'living constitution' leaves you with Scalia says.
Fifth, at least one of you is a total disingenous idiot in pretending not to know that Executive and Legislative Branches, partically the Executive, starting pushing the limits of their respective authorities under the Constitution virtually from day one of Washington's presidency. It's incredible that all that dolt can do is continue to babble horse crap of not making a point when I have made it crystal clear and will do again below. You have made absolutely nothing crystal clear, not even who you are addressing.
Perhaps both of you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions. Historically it has been the Executive Office that has pushed the boundardies, but not exclusively. And guess what, when there was no push back voila the power that was claimed de facto became constitutional. That is an indisputable fact of how we got to where we are today, i.e. an ever more poweful and unchecked Imperial Presidency, an ever more powerful and unchecked Federal government, the ever diminishing power of the States, and, ever changing, redefinition of individual rights. You are the one who says "none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation." It seems the new standard to test whether something is constitutional is to determine if anyone has done something. If they have, it's constitutional. But Obama and Congress passed a law implementing an individual mandate as a penalty and the Court said that was unconstitutional. Indeed, after segregation was constitutional for a long, long time, the Court somehow discovered it wasn't. After about two centuries of banning same-sex marriage, such a ban has recently been discovered to be unconstitutional. I just do not understand why the de facto standard failed. Apparently, they were all just stumbling around clueless, waiting for an enlightened someone such as yourself to come along and explain it all.
And guess what, when there was no push back voila the power that was claimed de facto became constitutional. In your certain knowledge that everything being done is constitutional, you have nothing left to blather about. What is the constitutional meaning of the word is?
#47. To: SOSO (#34) Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death.
90. A number of rules have been adopted, the observance of which will enable the judge to discover the intention of the legislature, and thus decide what the law is. They are principally the following: John Bouvier, Institutes of American Law, Vol. 1, (1854), p. 41. Person used in its most usual and most known signification means a human being. Persons as used in the Constitution refers to human beings, but does not include the dead, the undead, or the unborn. If you have a better definition, give it and justify it. I you believe you can either add to or delete from those I include in the definition, state your case. The original Law Dictionary adopted by Congress for its use was Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Here is it's 1856 edition definition of person.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
#48. To: SOSO (#41)
Stop playing games. You know quite well that you can't defend your answer as the Constitution does not define person at all. You did not ask for the Constitution's definition of person.
[SOSO #28] As soon as you give me the Consitution's meaning of the word person. You asked for the meaning of the word person as used in the Constitution.
The best we can do is to infer what the FF meant by the term in the context of specific usage, which opens the door wide to interpretation and assumptions. Mainly, it opens the door to the conclusion that you are clueless as to the difference between the Founding Fathers (FF) and the Framers. The Framers wrote the Constitution.
Confounding the issue us that sometimes person is spelled with an upper case p and sometimes a lower case p. Some people are more easily confounded than others. You have not offered any meaning other than that which I provided.
#49. To: SOSO (#41)
It is long past time for you to answer questions. I already did.
#28. To: nolu chan (#25)The 14th Amendment is not exclusive and is only a partial declaration of who are citizens. Try again. I'm still waiting for you to figure out your definition of citizen. The 14th Amendment which you blindly cut and pasted does not provide a definition of citizen any more than saying trout and guppies are fishes provides a definition of fishes. I gave specific examples of citizens that do not fit within what you claim to be a definition of citizen. At #32, "persons born overseas to U.S. parents become natural born U.S. citizens at birth. They are not born in the United States nor are they naturalized." Try to come up with a better definition that does not leave anyone out.
#50. To: SOSO, tpaine (#1)
SOSO #1: What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? "the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution.
"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. 2 Dal. 468 (1793)
thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution 2 Dal. 470 (1793)
There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. 2 Dal. 473 (1793) All the people of one state are the state. Albert T. Bledsoe, The War Between the States, 1915.
[51]
#51. To: nolu chan (#49) Birther stuff again? Where is that dentist/attorney/real estate broker/Martial arts expert Orly Taint when you need her? PS: I don't get when last we spoke you went ballistic over Ted Cruz when I called him a grifter.
#52. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#49) I gave specific examples of citizens that do not fit within what you claim to be a definition of citizen. At #32, "persons born overseas to U.S. parents become natural born U.S. citizens at birth. They are not born in the United States nor are they naturalized." Post the specific citing in the Constitution that says this. We know from the exact words in the Consitution that someone born in a state is a citizen of that state. That is the only thing we know which comes directly from the words in the Constitution about who or what is a citizen. What the courts have subsequently ruled as to who may be a citizen comes from interpretation of the Constitution through testing it. All of your references are secondhand opinions or rulings of what the Consitution means and as such can readily change over time. The Consitution itself says nothing about who or what a person is. Any such court determination (which now deems a corporation to be a person) likewise are secondhand opinions or rulings of what the Consitution means and as such can readily change over time. "the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution." I will grant that this MAY be one interpretation but a highly bastardize one. The words clearly refer to the collective people of the U.S. "All the people of one state are the state." Really? What happens when a citizen of one state moves to another. Of which state are they citizen (NB - Unless they renounce it they are ALWAYS a citizen of the U.S.). They can only vote (NB - a Constitutional right on a national/collective basis) in one state. In which state MUST they vote? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #53. To: Pericles (#51) Birther stuff again? No, constitutional stuff. Do you have any substantive issue with it?
#54. To: SOSO, tpaine (#52)
"the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution." You have some dissent from the U.S. Supreme Court:
"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. 2 Dal. 463 (1794)
There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. 2 Dal. 473 (1794) And, of course, the records of the Constitutional Convention document that you are full of crap.
FARRAND’s RECORDS and the Preamble, We the People
#55. To: nolu chan (#54) "The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. Yes, collecively called the U.S. It doesn't mean jack sh*t if a person moved from one state to another, that person is still a citizen of the U.S. It doesn't mean jack sh*t that each state has its separate constitution and government. The overarching principle is that they are all part of the U.S., collectively. Over a lifetime a person could live in all 50 states, his status as a citizen of the U.S. or more accurately of We The People, does not change one iota. So sayeth SCOTUS. I will abide by that. You? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #56. To: nolu chan (#54) There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. So what? That doesn't support your psotion at all. People within each state can also sue each other. BFD. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #57. To: SOSO, tpaine (#15)
I gave specific examples of citizens that do not fit within what you claim to be a definition of citizen. At #32, "persons born overseas to U.S. parents become natural born U.S. citizens at birth. They are not born in the United States nor are they naturalized." Your question is just bullshit. John McCain was born outside the United States and was not naturalized, and ran for President. He is a Senator and a citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and is a Senator and a citizen through birth to a U.S. citizen parent. You are the one who said at #15, "I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen." Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens. You suffer from the delusion that the 14th Amendment contains an exclusive definition of citizenship. It doesn't and never has. People born overseas, outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, are natural born U.S. citizens if a parent is a citizen. You are so legally incompetent that you cannot identify the part of the Constitution that applies, or why it applies.
#58. To: SOSO (#56)
So what? That doesn't support your psotion at all. People within each state can also sue each other. BFD.
any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State Read it again. The Court said that a state and all the people of a state are interchangeable terms. Continue. You are fun to watch.
#59. To: nolu chan (#57) Your question is just bullshit. John McCain was born outside the United States and was not naturalized, and ran for President. He is a Senator and a citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and is a Senator and a citizen through birth to a U.S. citizen parent. You are full of sh*t. I am not disputing that people born outside of the U.S. can be citizens. I just asked you to post the specific language in the Constitution that says that. You can't because it doesn't exit as such. Don't blame me for your inability to produce somethnig that doesn't exist while you insist that it does. So call me legally incompetent if that makes you feel better, just lead me out of the wilderness and show me where in the Consitution it states what you claim it does. I will even accept showing me what part of the Consitution applies. Just do it and you may prove you point. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #60. To: SOSO (#55) So sayeth SCOTUS. What imaginary SCOTUS opinion are you channeling?
#61. To: SOSO (#59)
You are full of sh*t. I am not disputing that people born outside of the U.S. can be citizens. I just asked you to post the specific language in the Constitution that says that. You are the one who said at #15, "I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen." Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens. You suffer from the delusion that the 14th Amendment contains an exclusive definition of citizenship. It doesn't and never has. You said you could do it. You have failed. You cannot challenge the obvious fact that persons that do not fall within the 14th Amendment provision become citizens all the time. They are in the Senate and have run for President. And you cannot explain how that is provided for because you are a blathering dolt. But you are fun to watch. And no, I am not going to point out the constitutional provision to your sorry ass.
#62. To: nolu chan (#60) The same authority as this. Seems that the Consitution wasn't quite specific enough and the "rules" were changed. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S." QED the Consitution does not support you claim. All the Consitution does is leave it to Congress to pass a laws goberning citizenship. It does not prescribe the content of that law. Has these laws been challenged or tested in the courts? Has SCOTUS ever ruled on them? The only thing it clearly states is what I said it does. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #63. To: nolu chan, y'all, soso, (#60) SOSO ---- So sayeth SCOTUS.
Good luck on getting a rational answer. ---- I've given up on having any sort of normal dialog with our boy SOSO. -- He's starting to remind me of how Yukon on old LP 'debated'. -- Virtually nonstop non-sequitur 'questions'. This quote of his sort of sums it up: -- потому что Бог хочет это тот путь ["Because God wants it that way."] -- Nonsense tag line from SOSO. (Who is this guy?)
#64. To: nolu chan (#61) You are the one who said at #15, "I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen." Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens. I did exactly that. You are being a total moron now. Over and out, turd brain. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #65. To: tpaine (#63) потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #66. To: All (#61) CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #67. To: SOSO, y'all (#65) -- Up yours --- link Thanks for the link to your weirdo site, soso! It explains a lot, on where you're getting these bizarre opinions.
#68. To: SOSO, y'all (#65) -- Up yours --- link Thanks for the link to your weirdo site, soso! It explains a lot, on where you're getting these bizarre opinions.
#69. To: SOSO (#52)
What happens when a citizen of one state moves to another. His or her mail gets lost?
The Consitution itself says nothing about who or what a person is. Any such court determination (which now deems a corporation to be a person) likewise are secondhand opinions or rulings of what the Consitution means and as such can readily change over time. Actually the Federal government has acted on a grant of authority to determine citizenship ever since day 1 of the constitutional government. Damn, it must be tough to go through life as lost as you are.
They can only vote (NB - a Constitutional right on a national/collective basis) in one state. No. There is no constitutional right to vote. Nobody has a constitutional right to vote. Damn, you're a funny guy. But you have a commanding knowledge of imaginary law.
#70. To: tpaine (#63) I've given up on having any sort of normal dialog with our boy SOSO. -- He's starting to remind me of how Yukon on old LP 'debated'. -- Virtually nonstop non-sequitur 'questions'. Yes, I've noticed the similarity.
#71. To: SOSO (#64)
[nolu chan #61] Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens. Yes you did.
#72. To: tpaine, SOSO (#68)
Thanks for the link to your weirdo site, soso! The link at the ping is http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582 This quotes a legendary birther article from The Post & Email of October 18, 2009 by John Charlton which is available at the below link: https://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/ Charlton's comments in general are a memorable hoot, but especially his bass ackwards blather about The Venus 12 U.S. (8 Cranch.) 253 (1814).
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP Justice Livingston did not write any opinion. "Justice Livingston," using "his own English" managed to replicate the words of the 1760 edition in English translation. He concurred with the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. Chief Justice Marshall provided the quote of Vattel in his dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions say nothing for the Court. Obviously, the decision was not unanimous. Justice Washington wrote the opinion of the majority. The majority considered Vattel's writings, commented that, "[i]n deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicil, it is not to be expected, that much, if any, assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations." The majority then proceeded to decide by reference to British law. It is a birther achievement to get that much wrong in one sentence.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|