and this might lead into whether the 14th is really a legal amendment....
Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
The 14th amendment was ratified by the states and made a part of our constitution. On what grounds do you think it might be challenged? Wouldn't the reverse have to occur? I am always curious about how the lawyers can find new ways to challenge settled law.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OVM,
YOU CAN NOT "CHALLENGE" AN AMENDMENT IN COURT - PERIOD
The same goes for the congress of the United States nullifying an amendment through legislation, it can't be done.
It means that people residing in territories and other places where the United States controls, like embassies and places where sovereign property is recognized either by agreement or treaty, the people who are born there are also also citizens of the United States.
Just like the idiots who think that the 16th amendment was not legal, now they look at this and say "ah duh ... look Fred ... not all the states passed it ... duh"
The SC already ruled on the citizenship issue, and exactly about foreign nationals who have children here are in fact US citizens - US v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Further court cases seemed to have defined it a bit based on education and other social services.
IF this is to be redefined, it will have to come from the SC and only the SC. The states can call a convention to create an amendment, which can happen, and it will force congress to act the way states want them to act.
ah yeah right... 28 of 37 states ratified it.
BtB The states did leave the union, that was what the war was all about - secession.
YOU CAN NOT "CHALLENGE" AN AMENDMENT IN COURT - PERIOD
The same goes for the congress of the United States nullifying an amendment through legislation, it can't be done.
It means that people residing in territories and other places where the United States controls, like embassies and places where sovereign property is recognized either by agreement or treaty, the people who are born there are also also citizens of the United States.
Just like the idiots who think that the 16th amendment was not legal, now they look at this and say "ah duh ... look Fred ... not all the states passed it ... duh"
The SC already ruled on the citizenship issue, and exactly about foreign nationals who have children here are in fact US citizens - US v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Further court cases seemed to have defined it a bit based on education and other social services.
IF this is to be redefined, it will have to come from the SC and only the SC. The states can call a convention to create an amendment, which can happen, and it will force congress to act the way states want them to act.
ah yeah right... 28 of 37 states ratified it.
BtB The states did leave the union, that was what the war was all about - secession.
DaWhale
Seasoned Expediter
My first thought as I read your post was how are our laws over turned and amendments reviewed for Constitutionality if not by legal challenges? I found this interesting article which states that the Supreme Court can and has reviewed an Amendment to the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution: The Meaning of Article V
Don’t know much about the ratification of the 14th Amendment, but I tend to believe that there was no intent to provide amnesty or “anchor babies” to illegal aliens through the passage of that Amendment. The world was a much different place then. I intend to do a little more reading before commenting further.
As I read the article linked by OVM; the government appointed military tribunals replacing the elected representatives of the Southern governments. They were not representatives of the people of those states and that is the basis for the argument regarding the ratification.
Amending the Constitution: The Meaning of Article V
Don’t know much about the ratification of the 14th Amendment, but I tend to believe that there was no intent to provide amnesty or “anchor babies” to illegal aliens through the passage of that Amendment. The world was a much different place then. I intend to do a little more reading before commenting further.
As I read the article linked by OVM; the government appointed military tribunals replacing the elected representatives of the Southern governments. They were not representatives of the people of those states and that is the basis for the argument regarding the ratification.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OVM
They can't.
There is a lot more to the occupation of the southern states and this issue wasn't just about the south. Ohio and New Jersey tried to rescind their ratification after the fact but it was too late. A few of southern states didn't ratify it until after it was part of the constitution. The 14th has five parts in it, one of which is the citizenship clause which was put there to prevent any court cases overturning the citizenship act of 1866.
The problem is, as it is with the 16th amendment, people want to read what they want to read and don't look at the big picture or the complexity involved.
They can't.
There is a lot more to the occupation of the southern states and this issue wasn't just about the south. Ohio and New Jersey tried to rescind their ratification after the fact but it was too late. A few of southern states didn't ratify it until after it was part of the constitution. The 14th has five parts in it, one of which is the citizenship clause which was put there to prevent any court cases overturning the citizenship act of 1866.
The problem is, as it is with the 16th amendment, people want to read what they want to read and don't look at the big picture or the complexity involved.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
As i said in another thread, you all (including myself) are still thinking were are living under the Constitution....Forget it, the Constitution is a thing of the past...the Fed will continue to do as it wants and the Constitution is not going to stand in its way, it hasn't for more yrs then most of us have been alive...its just being accelerated now...the progressives feel the time has come to destory this country and turn it into a EU type of government along with a world governence....
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I can tell you . I have never watched a single episode of Star Trek all the way through or seen any of the movies...
But i do understand your premise...
But i do understand your premise...