Re-interpreting the Constitution.

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: dmcanally
Then they can fill out their paperwork after they have a baby. This country isn?t a damn free ride.

?Ill just go have a baby in America, the feed off the teat of the governemt and welfare for the rest of my life.?

If someone isn?t willing to go through the PROPER portals for citizenship then they don?t deserve it. I love this country too much to just let any scumbag in.

I?m sorry, but that?s just how I feel.

people probably thought the same about your grandparents or great grandparents. get over yourself

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well the obvious answer is to amend it but like I said, good luck doing that. However maybe when mommy and daddy cant claim their child is a citizen and thus should be allowed to remain within country they may not bother making the trek. Maybe they will, but lose baby to the system.

Right now the obvious issue is the current system doesnt work. I think sending a strong msg that you are gone but your baby stays will keep most people out.

I see your point now, which in turn might be a very good deterrent.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What a stupid, ignorant and bigoted thing to say. First off, maybe they are going through the proper channels? You don't just get citizenship handed to you when you get off the boat or plane or cross the border even if you do it legally. Secondly, most of those that are coming over are working thier arses off. They are probably doing 3-4 times the work that you or I do (at least physically). Third, you ASSume that the child is going to end up like you (or someone like you) and be a welfare brat. Who are you to predict the future of this child?

I know.....NO ONE but an ignorant jacka$$.

Where did you get the idea that I am a welfare brat? Either way, how dare you. I work for and earn every penny I receive. I suckle no teat. When was the last time you applied for citizenship? While it might not be an instant process, it most certainly isn?t impossible. No matter what social class, no one is too poor to fill out paperwork.

I have to tell you, if it were up to me I would take the troops in Iraq and put up a 5 mile zone along the borders (both Canada and Mexico) ordering shoot to kill. That would stop illegal immigration pretty damn quick and more people would start to apply for that paperwork.

your quite a viscous little bloodthirsty keyboard jockey aren't you?

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: dmcanally
I have to tell you, if it were up to me I would take the troops in Iraq and put up a 5 mile zone along the borders (both Canada and Mexico) ordering shoot to kill. That would stop illegal immigration pretty damn quick and more people would start to apply for that paperwork.

Darn good thinking!

I know you think I am some kind of radical conservative or something, but I have heard from people that own land along the Mexico border that can't go on certain parts of their land for fear of being killed. One Texas rancher saw Mexican soldiers sighting in on him and had to run for his life. Others live in fear of running into drug smugglers that are heavily armed and wouldn't think twice, blink, or sneeze at the thought of wasting them.

I don't think a lot of you realize that Laredo, Texas and the Mexico side of Laredo is like a war zone. Something in the realm of 600 or so people have been killed there in the last year.

so killing everyone in site is the answer huh? 600 not enough dead for you?

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Originally posted by: lyssword
Sorry to sound like a smartass, but if it was me, and it was "like a warzone", I would consider moving to another state..

Sorry, but I don't give up something I love so easily. Texas is the best state in the Union by far. I have been this close ( |___| ) do dropping everything I have going right now to go work for the minute men project. If this were to have happen 100 years ago we would be at war with Mexico right now, not now its all about racism this and racism that. I?m sorry but I didn't know criminals were a race.

1) texas is a shithole, you should try getting out so you can realize just how crappy it is

2) if you do join the minute men project (i highly doubt the real minutemen would have approved) i hope the illegals stomp your ass out

3) no we wouldn't

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Those are great and valid points, and I agree with you 100% about immigrants from any other nation shouldn't have a harder time getting here than people from Mexico or Canada. I?m not sure if it is true but in a conversation with someone I was told that people who immigrate from Asia must show a certain amount of financial responsibility, have a sponsor, and know a certain amount of English to be able to immigrate here. If true I wonder if people who legally immigrate from Mexico have to follow the same strict guidelines.

are you saying that we should pay for their cost of travel? Pay people from eastern europe to move here so we can balance out the quotas?

 

[Jhhnn]

Nifty, CycloWizard. First, you want to extend the obvious meaning of the Constitution to cover the unborn, when it clearly refers to the "born", and then restrict it only to those born of citizens, when it clearly includes those born to anybody...

If nothing else, it's nice to see that you've chosen to back off of

"The statement you bolded allows abortion simply because fetuses are not physically born, though it's obvious that this is not what the statement intended. How do I know this? Because at the time of its passing, ALL 50 states had banned abortion."

in favor of a more factual

"And no, in fact many banned abortion outright owing to the difficulty of doctors who might be called upon to perform these procedures when they were, in fact, prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath that they had sworn. It was this contradiction that led to the banning of abortion in many states. I'm at home for Christmas break, so I don't have all my sources handy and can't recall the number off the top of my head, but I believe it's around half that banned abortion outright. "

Dancing from "all" to "around half" w/o batting an eye...

And this-

"I want someone who can interpret what is meant by the constitution rather than taking it word for word. "

You mean someone who will find a way to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, right?

I'd submit that some passages are so plain and so simple as to defy "interpretation" of any kind- they mean what they say, and always have. The 14th amendment simply does not address the "rights of the unborn" in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much you wish that it had. Abortion was very much a hot button issue in that time, too- had the framers of that amendment intended to include the unborn, they would have done so.

They did address the rights of all persons born in the united states- such persons are unequivocally citizens, which was clearly the intent, and the subject of this thread, prior to your attempts to derail it...

 

[smack Down]

if abortion is legal because of the 14th amandment does that mean I can go down to taxes and shoot a few illagels?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Addressed above. The moment of birth is in no way a logically tenable point for the granting of rights.

I brought this up in another thread and I'll bring it up here since we're on the subject of fetuses and rights.

Let's assume that all rights and protections are extended to fetuses and abortion is banned. Now, is it unconstitutional to have exceptions in abortion bans, e.g., girl was raped, girl is impregnated by famliy member, mother's health, etc.? After all, once you grant a fetus all rights and protections, the 14th amendment equally protects all fetuses, therefore, to deprive the fetus of "life, liberty, or property" without "due process" is unconstitutional under the 5th amendment.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nifty, CycloWizard. First, you want to extend the obvious meaning of the Constitution to cover the unborn, when it clearly refers to the "born", and then restrict it only to those born of citizens, when it clearly includes those born to anybody...

If nothing else, it's nice to see that you've chosen to back off of

"The statement you bolded allows abortion simply because fetuses are not physically born, though it's obvious that this is not what the statement intended. How do I know this? Because at the time of its passing, ALL 50 states had banned abortion."

in favor of a more factual

"And no, in fact many banned abortion outright owing to the difficulty of doctors who might be called upon to perform these procedures when they were, in fact, prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath that they had sworn. It was this contradiction that led to the banning of abortion in many states. I'm at home for Christmas break, so I don't have all my sources handy and can't recall the number off the top of my head, but I believe it's around half that banned abortion outright. "

Dancing from "all" to "around half" w/o batting an eye...

And this-

"I want someone who can interpret what is meant by the constitution rather than taking it word for word. "

You mean someone who will find a way to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, right?

I'd submit that some passages are so plain and so simple as to defy "interpretation" of any kind- they mean what they say, and always have. The 14th amendment simply does not address the "rights of the unborn" in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much you wish that it had. Abortion was very much a hot button issue in that time, too- had the framers of that amendment intended to include the unborn, they would have done so.

They did address the rights of all persons born in the united states- such persons are unequivocally citizens, which was clearly the intent, and the subject of this thread, prior to your attempts to derail it...

Wow, that's impressive jackassery even for you. You typed a post that long and managed to do nothing but attack me, neglecting to mention a single point that I made. I'm suitably impressed, and now remember why I used to just ignore you.

Originally posted by: her209
I brought this up in another thread and I'll bring it up here since we're on the subject of fetuses and rights.

Let's assume that all rights and protections are extended to fetuses and abortion is banned. Now, is it unconstitutional to have exceptions in abortion bans, e.g., girl was raped, girl is impregnated by famliy member, mother's health, etc.? After all, once you grant a fetus all rights and protections, the 14th amendment equally protects all fetuses, therefore, to deprive the fetus of "life, liberty, or property" without "due process" is unconstitutional under the 5th amendment.

And? Rape and incest are not logically reasonable exceptions to an abortion ban. They are predicated on an appeal to emotion, not logic, as you yourself pointed out: if it's a person, it's a person, regardless of whether it was conceived by rape or incest. Logically, it must be granted rights. The counter argument (that abortion must be allowed due to the manner of conception) is only there to make you feel better about yourself, not because it has any logical standing. The health of every mother is 'at risk' every time they get knocked up, just as yours is every time you get in a car. That doesn't mean we should allow you to drive a tank down city streets to protect yourself, does it?

 

[TallBill]

Constitutional amendment.. easy enough. If not, take the kid, make him a citizen and boot the parents.

Yes, there is a problem getting people to adopt grown children, but theres always a shortage of babies. People want a fresh kid, not one thats been abused and mistreated and is a brat by the age of 7.

 

[maluckey]

Nifty, CycloWizard. First, you want to extend the obvious meaning of the Constitution to cover the unborn, when it clearly refers to the "born", and then restrict it only to those born of citizens, when it clearly includes those born to anybody...

Not exactly to "those born of anyone". Just those born to anyone, and subject to the jurisdictin of the U.S. If they (the kids) are declared not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because their parents are here illegally, that automatically cancels citizenship for children born to illegals. The courts have also several times upheld that citizenship can be taken away under various circumstances.

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
your quite a viscous little bloodthirsty keyboard jockey aren't you?

What does that have to do with anything? Because I believe in protecting America Im a "viscous little bloodthirsty keyboard jockey"?

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
so killing everyone in site is the answer huh? 600 not enough dead for you?

If the zone was clearly marked and they still proceeded to invade... yea 1 million or more criminals dead would be great.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

1) texas is a shithole, you should try getting out so you can realize just how crappy it is

2) if you do join the minute men project (i highly doubt the real minutemen would have approved) i hope the illegals stomp your ass out

3) no we wouldn't

Why would you make an assumption that I haven?t been outside of Texas? While your opinion that Texas is a ?shithole?, mine is not. I happen to love this state. No other state has such a rich history, or better culture. Not to mention UT has the hottest female student body of any public college in the US. Either way, you just discredited anything you say as respectable.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
are you saying that we should pay for their cost of travel? Pay people from eastern europe to move here so we can balance out the quotas?

No, I am actually saying we need to make it impossible for anyone to cross our borders w/o going through the proper border checks/stations.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Once again, CW, you are either lying or duh-lussional or just have a reading comprehension problem:

ou're right, I should have said 'nearly all', and there were 37 states in 1868 when the amendment was added and 36 had laws restricting abortion. From Rehnquist's dissenting opinion in Roe v Wade:

There were NOT 36/37 states that had laws restricting abortion. Consider this that I posted in response to your first incorrect statements regarding this issue:

of the 28 that ratified the 14th amendment, only 23 had any sort of anti-abortion legislation on the books.

Now, I don't know how you interpret things, but that seems to read to me that, if 5 ratifying states didn't have laws prohibiting abortion, that it would be absolutely impossible to have 36/37 with laws against it.

Renquist stated that:

By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [p*175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.

A territory is not the same as a state. Unless we now have a Senators and Representatives from Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Atoll, Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island and Palmyra Atoll that haven't participated in a single roll call vote in the last couple hundred years.

Get your facts straight or STFU on the topic.

As for addressing your reply to the OT, I think that JJJohn has you described perfectly. You want a Constitution (or at the very least SC Justices) that can/will be "interpretted" to read what you think it should read instead of what it actually says. There are certain aspects of it that need to be interpretted because of technological advancements, i.e. free speech and the internet, but some things are as clearly relational then as they are today. The definition of a US citizen as described in this amendment is one of those items. If you are born here....you are a citizen. Period. End of story. Oh, and to address the jurisdiciton part, if you are within the US borders, you are subject to US jurisdiction with very few exceptions. Just being an illegal alien is not one of those exceptions. Maybe this will help you understand cause I know you will doubt me cause I am going against all of your beliefs, I refer you to the SCOTUS decision in Plyler v. Doe:

a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. The deprivation [p203] of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.

Next BS argument that you would like to have shot down.