A primer and discussion of the 14th Amendment, Section 1.

Jarod

Jarod

Truth Teller
Contributor
Amendment 14, Section 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."


SO....Lets look at this..

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship in the first sentence.
IN the second sentence, it guarantees rights to CITIZENS.

THEN... there is a semicolon. AFTER THE SEMICOLON, the 14th Amendment gives rights to ANY PERSON.


Read it, it is clear.

States are prohibited from taking from ALL PERSONS "Life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or deny ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction of the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.


Are you going to argue that ALL PERSONS and ANY PERSON means only Citizens? If you buy that silly argument, why did the writers of this Amendment separate the two categories with a semicolon?
 
Last edited:
It makes clear that "persons" are the citizens.

A semicolon is used between two closely related independent clauses. Both clauses are RELATED. It's not introducing something DIFFERENT.

Example:
I washed my car; I still need to vacuum the inside.

The entire subject revolves around citizens.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....."

Only CITIZENS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof! This not about non-citizens wondering into our country.

You're welcome. :cool:
 
AssHatZombie said:
it says all persons born or naturalized, dimwit.
Click to expand...

Before the semicolon. At that point it says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" then there is a semicolon and a new subject of people called "ALL PERSONS" and "ANY PERSON".
 
Stretch said:
It makes clear that "persons" are the citizens.

A semicolon is used between two closely related independent clauses. Both clauses are RELATED. It's not introducing something DIFFERENT.

Example:
I washed my car; I still need to vacuum the inside.

The entire subject revolves around citizens.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....."

Only CITIZENS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof! This not about non-citizens wondering into our country.

You're welcome. :cool:
Click to expand...

Simply unture, if that were the case, why the semicolon separating the restrictions on States, why two categories? It clearly defines two categories, Citizens and then ALL PERSONS.
 
Stretch said:
It makes clear that "persons" are the citizens.

A semicolon is used between two closely related independent clauses. Both clauses are RELATED. It's not introducing something DIFFERENT.

Example:
I washed my car; I still need to vacuum the inside.

The entire subject revolves around citizens.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....."

Only CITIZENS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof! This not about non-citizens wondering into our country.

You're welcome. :cool:
Click to expand...

Simply untrue, otherwise the writer would not offer new words. The Clear meaning of ALL PERSONS is not Citizens. The clauses are related but it separates rights given to Citizens from those given to ALL PERSONS, otherwise why separate them. The only difference is what class of people get the rights, otherwise it would have simply listed the rights in a single clause.
 
Why did the author separate rights given to Citizens from those given to ALL PERSONS if your silly claim that Citizens = ALL PERSONS is true?
 
Jarod said:
Simply unture, if that were the case, why the semicolon separating the restrictions on States, why two categories? It clearly defines two categories, Citizens and then ALL PERSONS.
Click to expand...

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang :palm:
I just explained it. A semicolon does not mean "but" (and then changes the subject to something opposite). It's all one continuing thought and declaration.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."
Therefore, CITIZENS ARE THEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS PERSONS.
Got it?
 
Jarod said:
Simply untrue, otherwise the writer would not offer new words. The Clear meaning of ALL PERSONS is not Citizens. The clauses are related but it separates rights given to Citizens from those given to ALL PERSONS, otherwise why separate them. The only difference is what class of people get the rights, otherwise it would have simply listed the rights in a single clause.
Click to expand...

WRONG
 
Trump rewrite: Bat out a tail light, yank them out of the car, smash their heads on the hood, toss in some cocaine you stole
from the evidence locker and book 'em Danno.
 
Stretch said:
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang :palm:
I just explained it. A semicolon does not mean "but" (and then changes the subject to something opposite). It's all one continuing thought and declaration.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."
Therefore, CITIZENS ARE THEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS PERSONS.
Got it?
Click to expand...

Then using your explanation this phrase... "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"... can be interpreted as the state can deprive any person who is not a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
 
Stretch said:
It makes clear that "persons" are the citizens.

A semicolon is used between two closely related independent clauses. Both clauses are RELATED. It's not introducing something DIFFERENT.

Example:
I washed my car; I still need to vacuum the inside.

The entire subject revolves around citizens.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....."

Only CITIZENS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof! This not about non-citizens wondering into our country.

You're welcome. :cool:
Click to expand...

Your car is a vacuum?
 
GayRod, why was this Amendment passed? Who was this Amendment directed towards?

Do you know the history of the Amendment GayRod? Are you going to say the history doesn't matter? Are you going to say that the context under which this was written doesn't matter?

It's OK if you want to say that GayRod. I just want you to go on record doing so
 
Jarod said:
Amendment 14, Section 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."


SO....Lets look at this..

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship in the first sentence.
IN the second sentence, it guarantees rights to CITIZENS.

THEN... there is a semicolon. AFTER THE SEMICOLON, the 14th Amendment gives rights to ANY PERSON.


Read it, it is clear.

States are prohibited from taking from ALL PERSONS "Life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or deny ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction of the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.


Are you going to argue that ALL PERSONS and ANY PERSON means only Citizens? If you buy that silly argument, why did the writers of this Amendment separate the two categories with a semicolon?
Click to expand...

Ah, but you or THEY left out whether they came to or are in the jurisdiction "legally". Jurisdiction has has a whole set of legal implications unto itself.

I DON'T know and it has confused the shit out me for a couple of decades now.
 
Since the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress (and through the incorporation process most of these apply to the states) from restricting speech, press, religion, and all the other rights in the first 8 amendments, that would already protect all persons in the U. S. from laws restricting their rights.

We can't prohibit the free speech of non-citizens because Congress (or the states) cannot pass such a law.

Citizens and non-citizens can be denied life, liberty, and property if due process is used. We can execute people if they commit murder as long as we follow due process.

It would help if we knew what specifically you are referring to.
 
christiefan915 said:
Then using your explanation this phrase... "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"... can be interpreted as the state can deprive any person who is not a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Click to expand...

The word 'persons' was already defined in the opening sentence.
""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".
In the Article's context, citizens are persons and persons are citizens.

Per my example: "I washed my car; I still need to vacuum the inside." No one would ask, "Inside of WHAT?"
No one would wonder, "Gee...maybe she meant her boat or her house."
It's clear that the related noun continues the relation to my "car".

The Article is addressing issues for CITIZENS.
 
Screw a bunch of punctuation marks. The 14th amendment, at it's core, guarantees that the former slaves and their offspring were citizens of this nation, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like every other citizen. It doesn't mean "let's take Consuela over the border to have her baby, the kid will be a US citizen and so will we, and we'll register as democrats to get free stuff, 'cause you can't eat life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It happened to right a wrong done to people brought here against their will and sold into slavery, and it happened 151 years ago. I think everyone has been taken care of by now, and it has become a gigantic loophole that has given us "birth tourism" and that insidious chain migration crap.

P.S. Here's a semicolon for you...;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top