Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?
We never got rid of it, but let's look at it
a bit more closely:
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.
For one thing, United States jurisdiction is different from State jurisdiction. US jurisdiction is geographically limited to those lands & properties
that are US Possessions & Territories (such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc) as well as those lands specifically given to the Feds by the State (such as
National Parks, Military installations & other such "needful buildings").
So for any child to be "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child would have to be born
inside of officially designated federal territory
. The same holds true for naturalization...In that it means becoming documented for the
Naturalization process through Immigration Services to become a US citizen.
The Congressional Journals (these Journals are where you'll find the original intent
of Congress at the time any legislation is considered!)
at the time this Amendment was ratified also explain another reason was to prevent the families of foreign dignitaries (such as diplomats & the like)
from popping babies as American citizens. Said dignitaries themselves were still under the jurisdiction of their home country & therefore their
children were also born under foreign jurisdiction.
The amendment was originally written to also provide certain (albeit limited) civil rights for the newly-freed slaves at the time, so that they would
have some form of protection under the law. However, becoming a US citizen (as compared to being a Natural Born Citizen not
born on US lands)
meant that only those Rights specifically mentioned in the Amendment would be upheld. In contrast, a Citizen born within State boundaries (not on
federal territory) are accorded the full range of Natural Rights enumerated by the Constitution & the Common Law
Originally posted by djvexd
Seeing how citizenship is applied and given by the federal gov't
Not entirely true...The federal government can only grant or revoke US citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship is a birthright that existed & was upheld
by the "several states" even before
the US government was created! Remember that the "states" (after the War of Independence) were more
like individual nations in their own right...they were the original English colonies that had won independance from England. The national
of government wasn't created until some years after
the end of the war & the state governments were then acting as diplomatic envoys among
each other...This was the Continental Congress. The federal government did not
create the States...The States (under We the People who had
delegated our state governments with certain political powers) created the federal government!
Yes, this does mean that there are two different classes of citizens in America: The superior form is (by legal definition) spelled with a capital
"C" & represents a Natural Born Citizen within State boundaries; The US citizen (legally spelled with a lower-case "c") is quite literally a
"second-class citizen" protected only with the limited range of Rights as specified within the 14th Amendment. The federal government can legally
strip anyone of their US citizenship, because it's defined by the 14th Amendment (not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights), but no one can legally
strip a Natural Born Citizen of their Natural Rights.
Originally posted by broahes
I am not disputing what was intended. I am disputing the false interpretation of legal definitions.
And this is what the federal government has done...Falsely interpreting the law & enforcing the resulting "policy" as if it were law. The whole
"anchor baby issue" is not specifically written in the laws...By SCOTUS ruling, when it comes to examining the law, they've upheld that "what is
not specifically included must be expressly excluded." This means that if any "intent" is to be applied, it must come from those who originally
wrote & passed it as law, not by the modern-day individual who reads it.
And yet, when political pundits try to interpret the law, they tend to apply their own personal viewpoints, instead of going to the Congressional
Journals of the time & actually using the original intent
as it was written. This is a psychological delusion that seems predominant within the
far-left political mind (although the right is also guilty of the same problem).
A good example of this is when, before the Health Care Reform Bill was passed (illegally, against established Legislative Procedures, no less), the
left wing-nuts were telling us that health care coverage was a Right! What a load of BS that was! Health Care is not a Right because no one is born
with it...It's not an endowment from the Laws of Nature. It is a "good," a product or service that must be paid for by somebody...It is a product
used in an act of trade. This is how the government messed everything up...By convincing Americans that we are "entitled" to these goods & services
that the government promises. In truth & by Nature, such entitlements are not birthrights & never were.
However, this wasn't really a problem in America until the advent of the "New Deal" & Social Security. One of the tricks that the Feds pulled on
Americans is the "registration" of the Birth Certificate. What this means is that the parents who fill out the application are "offering to enter
into contract" with the federal government. The Birth Certificate makes its way (eventually) to the Bureau of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Bank &
the International Monetary Fund! In essence, the parents have simply asked the feds to consider their child to become the "second-class citizens" as
defined by the 14th Amendment, instead of retaining the Natural Born Citizenship! There's a lot more to this, but this is the nutshell version...More
info has already been researched right here at ATS in this thread
Also note the fact that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate the full range
of Natural Rights...The 9th Amendment establishes this. The Bill
of Rights was derived directly from the Common Law, so it is within the Common Law is where other Natural Rights may be enumerated.
So, by law, the only legal "anchor baby" that could be granted automatic US citizenship are those born on actual Federal property, which is very,
Originally posted by broahes
I do not believe in law, the rule of law, the interpretation of laws, or the legal definition of legal terms.. I figured you should clearly know that
about me before we carry this on all day.
I understand what you're saying here. I'd just like to point out that the Common Law is also referred to as the Natural Law. That is to say that
it's the same as "the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator." The Natural Law literally governs over all life on this planet & is distinctly
different from the other laws created by men & governments. I felt that I should point this out so that those who see me writing about Natural Law &
legislated law knows what the distinction actually is.
The Constitution & Bill of Rights were originally written with the Natural Law firmly in mind when being discussed/debated by the Continental
Congress. In fact, the Continental Congress weren't ever going to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was already amended to it! The
various states were concerned about the eventuality that whatever national government they create would expand its powers & violate individual & state
sovereignty! This is what the 10th Amendment was all about.
For another example, the 2nd Amendment Right for the States (militias) & the (individual) People to own & bare arms simply affirms that all life forms
have some form of self-defense...The chameleon changes colors, the bird can fly away, the gazelle has its speed, the turtle has its shell, etc. Since
humanity doesn't really have such natural "in-born defenses," we use our minds & intellects to create tools to survive & defend ourselves. The 2nd
Amendment confirms that our tools for self-defense consists of the "arms" we build. So when you see or hear about any
kind of regulation that
restricts or hinders people from owning "arms," stop & wonder: what part of the phrase "shall not be infringed" do they have trouble
[edit on 29-5-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]