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

Jarod said:
I am referring to... the right to ALL PERSONS of DUE PROCESS and ALL PERSON within our jurisdiction EQUAL PROTECTION.
Click to expand...

I understand, but the real issue becomes how this gets interpreted.

For example, as you claimed, equal protection of the laws was meant to prohibit discrimination against blacks. What about discrimination against women? What about discrimination in marriage laws against those of the same sex? What about polygamists?

We know it has been interpreted to apply to women and same sex couples. Is it wrong for marriage laws to discriminate against polygamy?
 
You people will make incredibly imbecilic arguments to twist a political point.

The Courts are LAUGHING at you.
 
christiefan915 said:
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.
Click to expand...

See the 2 highlighted words. There you are speaking of what a citizen can not do to ANYBODY! Of course we can't commit crimes without getting arrested and judged.
We're talking about Article 14 here and how the Founding Fathers wrote it using proper grammar in order to get their message across.
They were more educated back then on the basics of English grammar and writing. We live now in the abbreviated Tweet age, feelings and personal interpretation.
 
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...

What part of DUE PROCESS are you struggling with? I don't see where it states ILLEGALS have Constitutional rights. Therefore, when an ILLEGAL crosses our borders ILLEGALLY, due process under the law is clear; they are incarcerated and sent back to their native countries. No Executive order by Obama can change that.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code.

This section, titled “Improper Entry of Alien” will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who:

1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or

2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or

3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver’s license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion.

The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.

Individuals who are caught illegally immigrating will face detention, imprisonment or deportation. An illegal immigrant’s deportation is determined in administrative or removal proceedings, held by the government in accordance with United States immigration law. A removal proceeding is typically conducted in an Immigration Court and held by an immigration judge. If the individual is found guilty of illegally immigrating, he/she may be sent back to their home country and barred from re-entry to the United States.
 
Teflon Don said:
14th Amendment was never meant to apply to foreigners. That's a fact jack
Click to expand...

As your article explains in United States v. Wong Kim Ark two Chinese parents who could not legally become citizens under the law that time had a child who was a U. S. citizen because he was born here.

Was that child a foreigner?
 
Hardon Don:


The 14th amendment is clear, so we don't need a non lawyer telling us what we read means "at it's core" followed but an emotional racist screed.

LMAO

It says all persons, and that clearly includes "consuelo's" child born here. Had they wanted it "at it's core" to be limited to slaves, it would have been an opportune time
and place to say so.

But it dint, dimwit.

Keep losing angrily. It's funny.
 
Micawber said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absurdity; a sure sign of the last desperate refuge for liars, fools and ignorance; and those who have lost their arguments. Yay you! :clap:
 
Flash said:
That was an issue left to Congress and then the states after 2010. The 2nd Amendment neither prohibits nor protects AR15's.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic to illustrate the way he twists reality to try to push a political agenda.
 
Teflon Don said:
How dumb does one have to be to peddle such a bullshit question?
Click to expand...

How dumb does one have to be to think the amendment applies to citizens only? If that were true when the amendment was written, only white men would have had the right to life, liberty and property. Read and learn, dummy.

"For most of American history there were few barriers to becoming a resident. The only official records of new arrivals were the Passenger Lists furnished by incoming vessels to U.S. Customs officials. These simply listed the names of all passengers, their nationality, where they embarked and, in some cases, where they were going. For many immigrants that simple list is the only record of their arrival in America. One could work, own property and enjoy most of the benefits of living in this county without ever becoming a citizen. However, citizenship was a requirement for those wishing to vote, hold public office or purchase land from the U.S. Government.

For most of the 19th Century, this was a simple, two step process. The person seeking to become a citizen first went to a local “court of record” that is any court that kept permanent records of its proceedings, and declared that it was his “bona fide intention” to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce allegiance to his former country. This usually involved making a sworn statement before a judge and signing a printed document. It should be noted that because women could not vote during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and few women purchased land or homesteaded, it is unusual to find a naturalization record for female immigrants before the 1920’s. Some years later (the usual required period was 5 years) the applicant would reappear before the court with two witnesses who would swear that he had been a good citizen."

http://discussions.mnhs.org/collections/wp-content/uploads/podcasts//072_naturalization.pdf
 
Stretch said:
See the 2 highlighted words. There you are speaking of what a citizen can not do to ANYBODY! Of course we can't commit crimes without getting arrested and judged.
We're talking about Article 14 here and how the Founding Fathers wrote it using proper grammar in order to get their message across.
They were more educated back then on the basics of English grammar and writing. We live now in the abbreviated Tweet age, feelings and personal interpretation.
Click to expand...

these people dont seem to understand basic English.
 
Truth Detector said:
What part of DUE PROCESS are you struggling with? I don't see where it states ILLEGALS have Constitutional rights. Therefore, when an ILLEGAL crosses our borders ILLEGALLY, due process under the law is clear; they are incarcerated and sent back to their native countries. No Executive order by Obama can change that.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code.

This section, titled “Improper Entry of Alien” will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who:

1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or

2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or

3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver’s license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion.

The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.

Individuals who are caught illegally immigrating will face detention, imprisonment or deportation. An illegal immigrant’s deportation is determined in administrative or removal proceedings, held by the government in accordance with United States immigration law. A removal proceeding is typically conducted in an Immigration Court and held by an immigration judge. If the individual is found guilty of illegally immigrating, he/she may be sent back to their home country and barred from re-entry to the United States.
Click to expand...

Is an "Illegal" a person, because if so, then an "Illegal" is included in the clear meaning of "ALL PEOPLE". Fucking idiot.
 
Truth Detector said:
What part of DUE PROCESS are you struggling with? I don't see where it states ILLEGALS have Constitutional rights. Therefore, when an ILLEGAL crosses our borders ILLEGALLY, due process under the law is clear; they are incarcerated and sent back to their native countries. No Executive order by Obama can change that.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code.

This section, titled “Improper Entry of Alien” will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who:

1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or

2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or

3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver’s license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion.

The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.

Individuals who are caught illegally immigrating will face detention, imprisonment or deportation. An illegal immigrant’s deportation is determined in administrative or removal proceedings, held by the government in accordance with United States immigration law. A removal proceeding is typically conducted in an Immigration Court and held by an immigration judge. If the individual is found guilty of illegally immigrating, he/she may be sent back to their home country and barred from re-entry to the United States.
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights cannot be denied anyone because the Constitution prohibits government from restricting these rights. They cannot pass such a law--it makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

Your example of illegals coming across the border and being deported do not involve any constitutional rights to be violated and due process was followed because it is determined in administrative or removal proceedings held in an Immigration Court.
 
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.)
 
I am very concerned about our Educational System. These people are basically uneducated.
 
Jarod said:
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.)
Click to expand...

5th graders are students, but not all students are 5th graders. In this case you would use a comma.
Persons are citizens and citizens are persons. (again, this is in context of the full Article)
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
See the 2 highlighted words. There you are speaking of what a citizen can not do to ANYBODY! Of course we can't commit crimes without getting arrested and judged.
We're talking about Article 14 here and how the Founding Fathers wrote it using proper grammar in order to get their message across.
They were more educated back then on the basics of English grammar and writing. We live now in the abbreviated Tweet age, feelings and personal interpretation.
Click to expand...

If that were true the wording would have ended where I wrote the words "full stop." At the time you had to become a citizen formally in order to vote, so technically women weren't citizens. Yet they still had the right to life, liberty and property.

"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[full stop].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top