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

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...

That is simply silly. Untrue. They took ALL PERSONS and made a sub category, then they gave some rights only to that subcategory and some rights to ALL PEOPLE. They defined what a citizen is, then said what rights Citizens get, and then defined what rights ALL PERSONS get. They took ALL PERSONS and made a sub category. You think they simply wanted to waste ink by separating the rights into two categories? If you they were not defining rights to two different groups, why create two separate clauses, why not a single clause?

You are dumb as a rock.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
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...;
Click to expand...

:hand::hand::hand:
 
Teflon Don said:
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
Click to expand...

I know why it was passed, it was passed because of Southerners propensity to refuse citizenship to certain classes of people and use that lack of citizenship to discriminate against them. The Amendment defined citizenship and then PROHIBITED taking certain rights from NON-CITIZENS (ANY PEOPLE) ever again.

The Amendment prohibits our government from taking anything from ALL PEOPLE without due process of law.
 
Centerleftfl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying an illegal immigrant who is in the UNITED STATES is not within the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES?

Because if we do not have jurisdiction, they cant be arrested or detained. You cant take any action without jurisdiction.

Do you even understand what the word means?
 
Jarod said:
I know why it was passed, it was passed because of Southerners propensity to refuse citizenship to certain classes of people and use that lack of citizenship to discriminate against them. The Amendment defined citizenship and then PROHIBITED taking certain rights from NON-CITIZENS (ANY PEOPLE) ever again.

The Amendment prohibits our government from taking anything from ALL PEOPLE without due process of law.
Click to expand...

And subsequent naturalization laws also defined citizenship as those born in the U. S. (plus numerous other provisions that changed by date).
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am referring to... the right to ALL PERSONS of DUE PROCESS and ALL PERSON within our jurisdiction EQUAL PROTECTION.
 
Jarod said:
That is simply silly. Untrue. They took ALL PERSONS and made a sub category, then they gave some rights only to that subcategory and some rights to ALL PEOPLE. They defined what a citizen is, then said what rights Citizens get, and then defined what rights ALL PERSONS get. They took ALL PERSONS and made a sub category. You think they simply wanted to waste ink by separating the rights into two categories? If you they were not defining rights to two different groups, why create two separate clauses, why not a single clause?
Click to expand...

Nooooooooooooooooooo :laugh:

The semi colon is used between two phrases, in which the first phrase causes the second.
1st phrase - persons
2nd phrase - citizens

If those two (persons & citizens) were NOT the same (as you advocate) the phrases would have been
separated by a comma.

Example:
I need to wash my car, I have to go shopping, I want to visit my neighbor.....etc.
See? All 3 phrases are totally unrelated.
 
Stretch said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Just no. Non-citizens on American soil cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. You can't just shoot a person who crossed the border illegally; you can't steal property from someone who's here legally or illegally; there has to be due process of the law.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
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...;
Click to expand...

ignorance abounds in you. Rights of black people was what precipitated the 14th, but as with all good legislation it was written in a way to anticipate wider situations based on larger principals. Thats why they used ALL PERSONS and not "black Americans".
 
Jarod said:
I know why it was passed, it was passed because of Southerners propensity to refuse citizenship to certain classes of people and use that lack of citizenship to discriminate against them. The Amendment defined citizenship and then PROHIBITED taking certain rights from NON-CITIZENS (ANY PEOPLE) ever again.

The Amendment prohibits our government from taking anything from ALL PEOPLE without due process of law.
Click to expand...

You were so close GayRod. It was to limit southern democrats propensity to refuse rights to blacks.

It was never intended to apply to illegal aliens. Ever. You know that right?
 
Stretch said:
Nooooooooooooooooooo :laugh:

The semi colon is used between two phrases, in which the first phrase causes the second.
1st phrase - persons
2nd phrase - citizens

If those two (persons & citizens) were NOT the same (as you advocate) the phrases would have been
separated by a comma.

Example:
I need to wash my car, I have to go shopping, I want to visit my neighbor.....etc.
See? All 3 phrases are totally unrelated.
Click to expand...

Then why two clauses? Why not just list the rights of Citizens in the first clause, why write a second clause and define the class using different words?


Example...

All 5th Graders get Ice Cream; all students get Popsicle.

If I had intended to say that all students get Ice Cream and Popsicle I would have written...

All students get Ice Cream and Popsicle. (no need for two clauses.)
 
Stretch said:
Nooooooooooooooooooo :laugh:

The semi colon is used between two phrases, in which the first phrase causes the second.
1st phrase - persons
2nd phrase - citizens

If those two (persons & citizens) were NOT the same (as you advocate) the phrases would have been
separated by a comma.

Example:
I need to wash my car, I have to go shopping, I want to visit my neighbor.....etc.
See? All 3 phrases are totally unrelated.
Click to expand...

Does your explanation mean that someone can freely kill a non-citizen without facing any legal penalties?
 
It would be ludicrous to use two separate clauses to define what a single group of people get.
 
christiefan915 said:
Does your explanation mean that someone can freely kill a non-citizen without facing any legal penalties?
Click to expand...

Exactly, using their argument the United States could legally just shoot families as they crossed the border. Or take their belongings and rape them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top