July 28, the 14th Amendment was certified, assuring equality for all Americans

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AutomateThis1v2
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, I guess they should have been more precise with what they meant and included reference numbers to a glossary in the back with precise definitions of the words used and footnotes to clarify any misunderstandings.

The founding fathers did that. They are called the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

Yes yes, I'm aware of The Federalist. I've read it once or twice. I enjoy the Anti-Federalist collection as well.

How many people here on this board have read those writings? Now, how many people in general have read them?

And last time I checked my Federalist collection is separate from my copy of the COTUS, and I'm pretty sure that there's not a copy of the writings included at the end of the COTUS either.

For as many people who have actually read and understood the general gist of the COTUS, I'm willing to bet there are many fewer who have read the Federalist, or have even heard of it. They don't even teach two alongside each other.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
For example illegal aliens and foreign nationals are not completely covered by the US Constitution.

Yes they are. Some provisions in the Constitution apply ONLY to Citizens, other provisions apply to ALL persons under the Jurisdiction of the United States. The only persons EXCLUDED by 'under the jurisdiction' are the Diplomatic Corp, invading armies, and Indians not taxed. And there aren't any Indians who are not taxed anymore.

Foreign Nationals cannot vote in our elections even though the constitution says the right cant be abridged.

The Constitution says no CITIZEN can be denied voting rights. The Constitution is silent on voting rights for foreigners.

Before 1928 there were many States that allowed some foreign nationals to vote in some elections. Although no State allowed it, there was no Federal law against foreigners voting in Federal Elections until 1996.

Illegal aliens don't have a right to have a lawyer appointed to them by the courts.

This is only true in immigration courts. It is NOT true in criminal courts where they have the same rights as everyone else.

Illegal aliens and foreign nationals dont have 2nd amendment rights

Yes they do, the 2nd Amendment makes no such distinction (unlike the voting rights provisions). However, (some) visas issued under the Constitutional power granted to Congress to make immigration law place various restrictions depending on what kind of visa it is.

Again, the Constitution has provisions that apply to Citizens only, and provisions that apply to foreigners only, and provisions that apply to ALL PERSONS under the jurisdiction.

The Constitution applies to everyone who is under the jurisdiction of the United States, but not every provision applies to every such person.

The Scotus said foreign nationals in the US who give birth does not have US citizenship granted to the new kid. They adopt their parents nationality.

That never happened, in anyway, shape, or form (for persons born "under the jurisdiction"). That is EXACTLY the situation in the case of Wong Kim Ark and SCOTUS said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your assertion.

Furthermore, US law has no say over the Foreign Country's citizenship laws. SCOTUS nor anyone else can dictate what a foreign country does about the citizenship of a child born overseas.

Also WKA was NOT considered a US Citizen, neither by the State of California nor the Federal Government.

His US Citizenship was challenged by the particular IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS that processed his arrival. And the Supreme Court told them they were wrong. End of story. That is what WONG v US was about. How does that advance your argument.

It only took his legal challenge to get to the Supreme Court so they could legislate from the bench, which is exactly what they did.

The Supreme Court didn't 'legislate' anything. They upheld the explicit provisions of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution does NOT apply to everyone

It is true that the Constitution does NOT apply to persons who are NOT 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

It absolutely does apply to EVERYONE who IS 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

Persons who are 'under the jurisdiction of the United States' includes ALL PERSONS who are physically present in one of the States, territories, protectorates, or other controlled areas excluding Diplomatic Corps, invading armies, and Indians not taxed.

Not every provision in the Constitution applies to every person who is 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

When a provision does not apply to some sub-group the authors have specifically used words that exclude the subgroup. In some cases, like the 14th amendment gone out of their way to emphasise that the provision applies to absolutely everyone who is 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

originally posted by: rnaa
Yes they are. Some provisions in the Constitution apply ONLY to Citizens, other provisions apply to ALL persons under the Jurisdiction of the United States. The only persons EXCLUDED by 'under the jurisdiction' are the Diplomatic Corp, invading armies, and Indians not taxed. And there aren't any Indians who are not taxed anymore.

No, they are not.

originally posted by: rnaa
The Constitution says no CITIZEN can be denied voting rights. The Constitution is silent on voting rights for foreigners.

If they are a foreign national then they are not Citizens.

originally posted by: rnaa
Yes they do, the 2nd Amendment makes no such distinction (unlike the voting rights provisions). However, (some) visas issued under the Constitutional power granted to Congress to make immigration law place various restrictions depending on what kind of visa it is.

and when the Constitution is not clear then its reserved to the states. Federal law also prohibits foreign nationals from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

originally posted by: rnaa
Again, the Constitution has provisions that apply to Citizens only, and provisions that apply to foreigners only, and provisions that apply to ALL PERSONS under the jurisdiction.

trying to move the goal posts eh...

originally posted by: rnaa
The Constitution applies to everyone who is under the jurisdiction of the United States, but not every provision applies to every such person.

and anything not specifically spelled out to the federal government is reserved to the states.

originally posted by: rnaa
That never happened, in anyway, shape, or form (for persons born "under the jurisdiction"). That is EXACTLY the situation in the case of Wong Kim Ark and SCOTUS said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your assertion.

and the lawyers for the government (federal and state) used prior precedence in their argument that he was not a US citizen because his parents were not US citizens when he was born. Scotus set a precedence when they ruled in his favor because up to that point birthright citizenship did not apply to children born in the US where their parents were not US citizens.

originally posted by: rnaa
Furthermore, US law has no say over the Foreign Country's citizenship laws. SCOTUS nor anyone else can dictate what a foreign country does about the citizenship of a child born overseas.

Another example of the reason foreigners who gave birth in the US were not considered US citizens. We know this because the Constitution had to "grandfather clause" in the founding fathers, as they were not born in the US when they did the politics after the revolutionary war.

originally posted by: rnaa
His US Citizenship was challenged by the particular IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS that processed his arrival. And the Supreme Court told them they were wrong. End of story. That is what WONG v US was about. How does that advance your argument.

and rightfully so since up to that point precedent already existed supporting the position of the state and federal government. Hence the reason the Scotus ruling in this case was considered a landmark ruling as it completely scrapped the precedents in question.

originally posted by: rnaa
The Supreme Court didn't 'legislate' anything. They upheld the explicit provisions of the 14th Amendment.

No they legislated from the bench. Just like they did whe4n they applied the 14th amendment to all states instead of states wanting to rejoin the Union.

originally posted by: rnaa
It is true that the Constitution does NOT apply to persons who are NOT 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

It absolutely does apply to EVERYONE who IS 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

Persons who are 'under the jurisdiction of the United States' includes ALL PERSONS who are physically present in one of the States, territories, protectorates, or other controlled areas excluding Diplomatic Corps, invading armies, and Indians not taxed.

Not every provision in the Constitution applies to every person who is 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

So not everyone is covered by the US Constitution.

originally posted by: rnaa
When a provision does not apply to some sub-group the authors have specifically used words that exclude the subgroup. In some cases, like the 14th amendment gone out of their way to emphasise that the provision applies to absolutely everyone who is 'under the jurisdiction of the United States'.

shifting the goal posts once again I see..


So in other words the US Constitution applies to people but there are certain groups of people is spe34cifically does not cover - as you said a few times and as I said from the get go.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
No, they are not.

Which assertion are you objecting to here?

If they are a foreign national then they are not Citizens.

That is correct. The Constitution is silent on Foreign Nationals voting - and therefore according to you it is left up to the States. As I said it used to be the case that 40 States allowed Foreign Nationals to vote in some elections. The Constitution says that CITIZENS shall not be denied the right to vote (except for good reason). It doesn't say anything what-so-ever about whether non-citizens can vote or not vote.

and when the Constitution is not clear then its reserved to the states. Federal law also prohibits foreign nationals from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

Federal Law is NOT The Constitution. The Constitution is silent on Foreign Nationals owning/carrying weapons

trying to move the goal posts eh...

Nope. I have never said anything different.

and anything not specifically spelled out to the federal government is reserved to the states.

Maybe, but the discussion is about the 14th amendment and who that applies to. It applies to ALL PERSONS BORN ... IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. It is SPECIFICALLY spelled out.

and the lawyers for the government (federal and state) used prior precedence in their argument that he was not a US citizen because his parents were not US citizens when he was born. Scotus set a precedence when they ruled in his favor because up to that point birthright citizenship did not apply to children born in the US where their parents were not US citizens.

The lawyers for the Government LOST THAT ARGUMENT. Before "Dred Scott" it was absolutely the case that Birth Right citizenship applied. The specific purpose of the first clause of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the Dred Scott decision, which is to this day considered the worst, most wrongly decided case in the history of SCOTUS.

Another example of the reason foreigners who gave birth in the US were not considered US citizens. We know this because the Constitution had to "grandfather clause" in the founding fathers, as they were not born in the US when they did the politics after the revolutionary war.

That is absurd. Citizens of the individual Colonies/States became Citizens of the United States. The Grandfather clause was to benefit Founding Fathers such as Alexander Hamilton who was born in Jamaica but became naturalized in New York before the War of Independence. Hamilton was not a 'natural born citizen', so he was not eligible to be President under the 'natural born citizen' rule. The Founding Fathers thought that was unfair to Hamilton, and others like him, so they wrote the Grandfather clause. It has no effect on the Founding Fathers who were natural born citizens.

and rightfully so since up to that point precedent already existed supporting the position of the state and federal government. Hence the reason the Scotus ruling in this case was considered a landmark ruling as it completely scrapped the precedents in question.

Not 'precedent'... a Supreme Court Decision "Scott v US" - the Dred Scott decision. The reason they challenged him was because of the Asian Exclusion Act that prevented NON CITIZEN Asians from entering. In fact, the precedents established favored Wong's position (case law "in re Look Tin Sing"; "Ex parte Chin King", and "Ex parte Chan San Hee" for example, which all said the same thing and were not challenged.)

No they legislated from the bench. Just like they did whe4n they applied the 14th amendment to all states instead of states wanting to rejoin the Union.

No they didn't and your assertion makes no sense what-so-ever. The decision did NOT change any law, or even the interpretation of a law - it did affirm the supremacy of the Constitution over mere legislation. Congress has the power to legislate immigration law, so the Asian Exclusion Laws were legal and not changed by the decision. Congress does not have the power to exclude Citizens, however, so immigration law simply does not apply to citizens. Wong Kim Ark was an American Citizen at birth according to the Constitution, and that was what SCOTUS affirmed.

So not everyone is covered by the US Constitution.

Yes it is. But not every word applies to every individual. There are provisions that apply to the Office of the President but not to the Congress - does that mean that the Constitution does not fully apply to Congress? Your argument is intellectually dishonest. Obviously the Constitution does not apply to those who are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, like French Tourists in Africa or at home. But it does apply to French Tourists in America

shifting the goal posts once again I see..

Nope, again. That has been my exact argument from the beginning. When the authors of the Constitution and various amendments meant 'some but not all' they said so in no uncertain terms. In the 14th they specifically said 'ALL' - no ambiguity.

So in other words the US Constitution applies to people but there are certain groups of people is spe34cifically does not cover - as you said a few times and as I said from the get go.

NO - the Constitution applies to EVERYONE who is under the jurisdiction of the United States, pure and simple. Obviously it does not apply to those not under the jurisdiction of the United States. AND YOUR argument has been - all along - that the 14th amendment does NOT apply to "ALL Persons born in the United States ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Your argument, from your first words is the the word "ALL" that is clearly and unambiguously specified in the 14th amendment is somehow secretly meant to be "SOME". It doesn't, and your obfuscation into irrelevant arguments that have no justification don't work to advance your case.