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

Stretch said:
5th graders are students, but not all students are 5th graders. In this case you would use a comma.
Persons are are citizens and citizens are persons. (again, this is in context of the full Article)
Click to expand...

The difference is that not all persons are citizens.

All Citizens are persons. TRUE
YET
All persons are Citizens. FALSE



In my example of 5th Graders....


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.)

All Fifth Graders are Students. True
YET
All Students are fifth graders. False



Do you see basic reasoning now?
 
Micawber said:
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.
Click to expand...

You best pipe the fuck down then.
 
Jarod said:
Then why say "All Persons". Are foreigners not persons? Canadians would be shocked to find out they are not people.
Click to expand...

You will have to ask the people that wrote it why they put a semi colon where they put it

I notice you can't argue the real intent of the Amendment.
 
Stretch said:
5th graders are students, but not all students are 5th graders. In this case you would use a comma.
Persons are are citizens and citizens are persons. (again, this is in context of the full Article)
Click to expand...

Citizens are persons but not all persons are citizens. Go and read up on citizenship as it was defined in the mid 1800s.
 
Flash said:
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?
Click to expand...

The child should not be a citizen. But, I understand why you Trans Righty chamber of commerce types want it. You want cheap oranges and I guess need the ching chongs to do your laundry
 
christiefan915 said:
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
Click to expand...

Shut up cunt. The big boys are talking. You aren't smart enough to hold a conversation about such technical things.
 
christiefan915 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why only men? The Constitution makes no reference to gender.
 
Teflon Don said:
You will have to ask the people that wrote it why they put a semi colon where they put it

I notice you can't argue the real intent of the Amendment.
Click to expand...
It appears that his “intent” is to convince fifth grade students...his intellectual contemporaries.
 
christiefan915 said:
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
Click to expand...

:palm:
 
Flash said:
Why only men? The Constitution makes no reference to gender.
Click to expand...

Because the rules about citizenship were different in the mid-1800s. See this paragraph in post 50. Women couldn't vote in 1868.

"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."
 
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."

No state shall...Citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any state... Any Person...
Nor deny... any person within its jurisdiction.




You idiots see, the writer defined three categories of people and limited government action with regard to each catagory.

We have "Citizens."
We have "Any People."
We have "Any People within its Jurisdiction."

The Government cannot make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

The Government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The Government cannot deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
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...

What are these "certain rights" you keep bloviating about? Illegals only have the right to due process. They do not have Constitutional rights.
 
Teflon Don said:
The child should not be a citizen. But, I understand why you Trans Righty chamber of commerce types want it. You want cheap oranges and I guess need the ching chongs to do your laundry
Click to expand...

But he is. You are not arguing the law--you are just arguing because you disagree with the law. You are one of those trans lefty types who claim you support the "rule of law" until you disagree with it.

The point is that the child is a citizen because he was born here.

Most of us are citizens because of birthright citizenship. Most first generation immigrants did not become citizens but their children (and us) were citizens because they were born here.
 
christiefan915 said:
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].
Click to expand...
No need for a "full stop". That's why the semi colon was used. So simple. It was a continuation of the same activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top