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

The Fourteenth Amendment, was certified as part of the Constitution by Secretary of State William Seward on this date — July 28, 1868.
Congress passed it on June 13 and it was ratified by the requisite 28 of then-37 states on July 9, 1868.
The 14th Amendment states "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," states Section 1 of the Amendment. "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."

Now, 154 years later, America is found going backwards, or some are saying that the pendulum is swinging back. We have on one party that is allowing the civil disobedience of their contrived members, while incarcerating, and depriving due process, members of a different party.
Equal protection of the law has also been abandoned, from citizens to Supreme Court judges. Members of this New Order pathetically state that our Constitution and it's Amendments are, "just a d@mn piece of paper." This political madness, gross premeditated violation of our laws must stop. And if freedom loving, lawful citizens don't go out to vote, and become appoin­ted by a candid­ate or by a polit­ical party, who observe the elec­tion process — whether at polling places or as ballots are reviewed and coun­ted, those nefarious individuals in power, will take Constitution and it's Amendments, to the restroom stall.
Please review my signature before posting.

a reply to: Violater1

Apparently it didn't "assure" anything except discrimination against melatonin deprived cis gendered makes...

a reply to: Violater1

Probably a bit off topic but the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children born in the US if the parents were not US citizens. The intent of that section of the 14th amendment was designed to apply to slaves, who were considered 3/5s of a person, in addition to Native Americans, who were outright ignored.

People in both groups became full US citizens, in addition to their children.

At the rate the left is going im thinking we might see a second civil war before the 2024 Presidential elections. Our government has gotten so out of hand, corrupt, self serving, selling out the American people that the only way to correct the problems is to take up arms and force the changes we demand.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Violater1

Probably a bit off topic but the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children born in the US if the parents were not US citizens. The intent of that section of the 14th amendment was designed to apply to slaves, who were considered 3/5s of a person, in addition to Native Americans, who were outright ignored.

People in both groups became full US citizens, in addition to their children.

At the rate the left is going im thinking we might see a second civil war before the 2024 Presidential elections. Our government has gotten so out of hand, corrupt, self serving, selling out the American people that the only way to correct the problems is to take up arms and force the changes we demand.

I really don't like responding to posts like this.
But damn you nailed it!
My problem is what changes will be made and how will said change impact my life.
Don't step on snake.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Violater1

Probably a bit off topic but the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children born in the US if the parents were not US citizens. The intent of that section of the 14th amendment was designed to apply to slaves, who were considered 3/5s of a person, in addition to Native Americans, who were outright ignored.

People in both groups became full US citizens, in addition to their children.

At the rate the left is going im thinking we might see a second civil war before the 2024 Presidential elections. Our government has gotten so out of hand, corrupt, self serving, selling out the American people that the only way to correct the problems is to take up arms and force the changes we demand.

I really don't like responding to posts like this.
But damn you nailed it!
My problem is what changes will be made and how will said change impact my life.
Don't step on snake.

The obvious problem is the responsibility of the current administration's party. They are hell bent on destroying the USA. And in doing so, have violated our laws!

a reply to: Allaroundyou

the only changes that should be made are strict following of the constitution for one. NO PAID POSISTIONS except military,police and civil services.

Voting becomes MANDATORY and done in 1 day. early voting starts a month out. Plenty of time.If you do not vote you are banned from using public services until the next election. If you refuse a second time,you are deported as a enemy of the US.

Next, NO PARTIES shall exist PERIOD. Electoral college becomes used for all voting. Popular vote is banned.

Border becomes a DMZ and no one but approved people pass through. A border just like the walls in Korea.

All citizens over 18 must take firearms classes and become deputized for a year.

And all states have the option of Leaving,IF they sign a mutual defense pact and free trade deal that cannot be revoked or weaseled out of.And ALL STATES will follow the COTUS regardless of being part of the US or not.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Probably a bit off topic but the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children born in the US if the parents were not US citizens. The intent of that section of the 14th amendment was designed to apply to slaves, who were considered 3/5s of a person, in addition to Native Americans, who were outright ignored.

That assertion is simply not true. It is false. It is a lie. It is un-American. It is racist. It is hog wash.

The motto of this board is "Deny Ignorance". Spreading these lies is the antithesis of that motto.

If the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to former slaves, then it would have said so in no uncertain terms.

Yes, it was intended to correct the egregiously wrong and racist Supreme Court decision (Scott v Sandalford - a.k.a. the "Dred Scott" decision) that sought maintain the former condition of slavery without actually calling it slavery anymore because that was the specific circumstance at the time. The Dred Scott decision was aimed at one particular class of persons "born in the United States" because that was the specific case presented to the court - but it applied to ANYONE in similar circumstance - black, white, yellow, brindle.

Importantly the 14th served to formalize that citizenship relationship that had always been assumed by everyone who had inherited from the English Law, that persons born in a country were citizens of that country. The Dred Scott decision turned that previously understood fundamental concept on its head - the 14th corrected that terrible result.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment contains FIVE clauses - four of which correct 'holes' in the Constitution that the original authors did not consider necessary at the time because the proper handling of the circumstance was understood as fundamental and not in need of elaboration, birthright citizenship was just one of those circumstances (the 5th clause provides for enforcement of the Amendment). Also covered was representation allocated on the basis of legal voters (you cannot exclude a class of voters and then expect those excluded voters to count towards representation in Congress), return to public service after insurrection or rebellion (you cannot expect to hold office after partaking in a rebellion or insurrection), the US shall pay authorized debts incurred in putting down rebellions, but will not under any circumstances pay the debts of the rebels.

a reply to: rnaa

Actually, yes it is.

Originally the 14th amendment was adopted and was to apply only to the southern states as a requirement to rejoin the Union. It was challenged and the challenge ended up at the Supreme Court. Scotus had a dilemma - How do you have a constitutional amendment that only applied to certain states? Under our Constitution all states are equal. To get around the issue Scotus applied the 14th amendment to all states and not just Southern states wanting to rejoin the Union.

The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was specific as its original intent was to force Southern states to acknowledge slaves as actual people and equal. Being our Constitution only recognized slaves as 3/5 of a person, and did not recognize Native Americans as people at all, a constitutional amendment was needed - hence the 14th amendment.

The citizenship clause was to ONLY apply to slaves and native Americans and their children. It was never designed to apply to non US citizens who had a child in this country. Scotus upheld that that until 1898. In the Scotus ruling for US v. Wong Kim Ark they dealt with a Chinese family who were still subjects of the Chinese Empire who did not wish to become US citizens. During there stay in the US they had a child, who grew up in the US. Kim was born in San Francisco in 1873. When he got older, and after his parents left the US and returned to China, he returned to China to visit them. When he returned to the US he was denied entry by the Customs Collector. He filed a lawsuit and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The case against his presence in the US was simple - he was not a US citizen because his parents did not become US citizens. Arks position was he was born in San Francisco, lived in the state of California, USA, his entire life and aside from his parents had no connections to China.

At the time laws had been passed restricting Chinese nationals coming into the United States. In an effort to get rid of the law they disagreed with, Scotus issued a ruling in favor of Ark. However instead of it being a narrow ruling (only applying to the one case and not acting as a precedent) they issued a broad ruling, applying it to anyone who was born in the US.

The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended to apply to to persons born in the US whose parents were not US citizens.

So the next time you decide to make an accusation maybe you should learn the topic and understand the facts before opening your mouth.

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.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Allaroundyou

the only changes that should be made are strict following of the constitution for one. NO PAID POSISTIONS except military,police and civil services.

Voting becomes MANDATORY and done in 1 day. early voting starts a month out. Plenty of time.If you do not vote you are banned from using public services until the next election. If you refuse a second time,you are deported as a enemy of the US.

Next, NO PARTIES shall exist PERIOD. Electoral college becomes used for all voting. Popular vote is banned.

Border becomes a DMZ and no one but approved people pass through. A border just like the walls in Korea.

All citizens over 18 must take firearms classes and become deputized for a year.

And all states have the option of Leaving,IF they sign a mutual defense pact and free trade deal that cannot be revoked or weaseled out of.And ALL STATES will follow the COTUS regardless of being part of the US or not.

Yeah, no thanks. While there are some things you've mentioned that I would like to see happen, overall that sounds incredibly authoritarian, practically tyrannical, and extremely ridiculous.

I'm not voting for two or more dumbasses. If such a system were to be implemented you'd be deporting more people than is feasible and creating more "enemies of the US" than is necessary.

What? You're going to train 18 year olds how to defend themselves and deputize them, just to more than likely kick them out by the time they are twenty-five to thirty?

Even if that did motivate people to vote the likelihood of them just voting to get it done and over with without being inform would still be there. They would only be doing it so that they don't get deported lmao.

Let's here some more fantasy about the electoral college for all voting while rooting out political favors and corruption. You going to shoot them for traitorous behaviour?

Hell, may as well deport everyone and then shoot who all is left lmao

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.

Tulane University School of Law - History of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment

The Civil War ended on May 9, 1865. Just more than three years later, on July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. This amendment and the 13th and 15th amendments were a part of the Reconstruction Era of the United States, which focused on civil rights and rebuilding the war-torn nation. The 14th Amendment states that every person born or naturalized in America is a citizen of the country as well as their state of residence.

Some southern states began actively passing laws that restricted the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, and Congress responded with the 14th Amendment, designed to place limits on states' power as well as protect civil rights. To be readmitted to the Union after the Civil War, southern states had to ratify the 14th Amendment. Initially, Native Americans were not granted citizenship by this amendment because they were under the jurisdiction of tribal laws. It was not until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted Native Americans citizenship rights as well.

The 14th Amendment has five sections. The first section introduces the citizenship law for all people born in the country or naturalized. This section also covers the limitations of state laws, which cannot supersede federal laws that govern citizens. States cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process of law means that legal proceedings have to be fair and that citizens need to be given notice and a chance to be heard before any rulings are made. When originally passed, the 14th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship rights to African-Americans, and it states that citizenship cannot be taken from anyone unless someone gives it up or commits perjury during the naturalization process.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The 14th Amendment has five sections. The first section introduces the citizenship law for all people born in the country or naturalized. This section also covers the limitations of state laws, which cannot supersede federal laws that govern citizens. States cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process of law means that legal proceedings have to be fair and that citizens need to be given notice and a chance to be heard before any rulings are made. When originally passed, the 14th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship rights to African-Americans, and it states that citizenship cannot be taken from anyone unless someone gives it up or commits perjury during the naturalization process.

Yes, of course. Because that was the specific wrong that was being addressed - the Dred Scott decision said that no black person could ever become a citizen, whether they were a former slave or a descendant of a slave or a newly arrived immigrant or a resident of a free state.

The Tulane paper you quoted does not support your argument. It describes the specific case justification for the amendment but it DOES NOT say, nor imply, that it forever and always applied to former slaves only, in fact is specifically states it applies to ALL persons. The citizenship question for former slaves and their descendants was the immediate driving issue that motivated the first clause of the 14th Amendment, but that Amendment absolutely did not limit itself to that issue and that issue only.

The Constitution isn't just for SOME people, it is for ALL people.

When the authors of the Constitution wanted to specify that a provision applied only to citizens, they said so - in the words they wrote into the Constitution. When they wanted a provision to apply to anyone 'under the jurisdiction of the United States' (that is, everyone within the borders, foreign or nationals, but not including foreign diplomats or invading armies) they made no such distinction.

Likewise, the authors of the 14th Amendment said exactly what they meant.

The 14th amendment DOES NOT say
"Black Persons born in or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."

The 14th amendment DOES say
ALL persons born in or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."

It doesn't matter that YOU want it to only apply to former slaves - the words of the Constitution says that it applies to ALL persons - and there is no way that you can read it otherwise.

All your wishing and carrying on and wanton attempts to spread false narratives about the Constitution hoping to capture a few like-minded minds is just an unAmerican attempt to divide the People of the UNITED States along racial lines.

You are entitled to your opinion, but remember that your opinion can be wrong - and in this case it is very wrong.

a reply to: rnaa

I've explained it to you and yet you refuse to educate yourself on the topic. The article from Tulane supports my argument and that is the only reason you ignore it.

I am done arguing with you on this topic.

Have fun debating yourself and ignoring historical fact.

After thinking it over I can't let your ignorance nor your attacks go.

originally posted by: rnaa
Yes, of course. Because that was the specific wrong that was being addressed - the Dred Scott decision said that no black person could ever become a citizen, whether they were a former slave or a descendant of a slave or a newly arrived immigrant or a resident of a free state.

Due to the Constitution and the fact the Dred Scott ruling came in 1857. It became a moot point when Scotus applied the 14th amendment to ALL states and not just Southern states, as was its original intent.

originally posted by: rnaa
The Tulane paper you quoted does not support your argument. It describes the specific case justification for the amendment but it DOES NOT say, nor imply, that it forever and always applied to former slaves only, in fact is specifically states it applies to ALL persons. The citizenship question for former slaves and their descendants was the immediate driving issue that motivated the first clause of the 14th Amendment, but that Amendment absolutely did not limit itself to that issue and that issue only.

Actually it does however through your arrogance you just ignore what does not fit your narrative. Had you actually read it, along with the intent of the 14th amendment, you would notice the original intent was for it to apply to slaves and Native Americans. Due to Native Americans being dealt with at the Federal level only, it took another act of Congress to provide them with full citizenship.

originally posted by: rnaa
The Constitution isn't just for SOME people, it is for ALL people.

Except if you were a Black and a slave, in which case it did not apply to you. Well except for purposes of counting the population, but even then you would only be 3/5th of a person. Hence the 14th amendment.. you know the part you desperately ignore.

originally posted by: rnaa
When the authors of the Constitution wanted to specify that a provision applied only to citizens, they said so - in the words they wrote into the Constitution. When they wanted a provision to apply to anyone 'under the jurisdiction of the United States' (that is, everyone within the borders, foreign or nationals, but not including foreign diplomats or invading armies) they made no such distinction.

Except when the 14th amendment was drafted and ratified. Prior to that Blacks were not considered people and only counted as 3/5th's of a person. Further, Scotus's ruling on applying the 14th amendment to al states contradicted the intent of the founding fathers, or so the Federalist Papers #17 tells us. The ONLY reason to apply the 14th amendment only to Southern States, and make it a requirement in order to be readmitted to the union, tells us the 14th ONLY applied to Black slaves and their children. Further Scotus upheld the fact that foreigners, when visiting the US, who had a child born here, did NOT transfer citizenship to the children. It was not until 1898 in the Scotus ruling in the US v. Wong Kim Ark case, and even then the only reason Scotus ruled the way they did was an effort to legislate from the bench. This is proven in the way Scotus ignored already established precedent and how they made it a general ruling instead of a narrow ruling.

But by all means explain the discrepancy in the citizenship clause and it being adopted in 1868, citizenship not being granted to foreigners born in this country (unless they were black slaves), and having to wait until until 1898 for it to be erroneously distorted by the Scotus ruling?

originally posted by: rnaa
Likewise, the authors of the 14th Amendment said exactly what they meant.

The 14th amendment DOES NOT say
"Black Persons born in or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."

The 14th amendment DOES say
ALL persons born in or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside..."

and again you ignore historical fact and use your opinion, which doesnt fly. If it was not geared towards black slaves and their children, then why was it a requirement for only Southern States to adopt the 14th amendment in order to rejoin the Union? Maybe it had to do with the fact that Southern states, even after losing the civil war, still tried to legislate in order to keep black slaves.

Secondly foreigners visiting this country are not all subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Or did you forget that Ambassadors and their families are specifically carved out. Even if an Ambassador, or family member of, gives birth, they dont get US Citizenship.

As I said in the Scotus ruling for Wong Kim Ark, the governments position was simple. Because Arks parents, who lived in the US but retained their loyalty to the Chinese Empire who then moved back to China without ever becoming US Citizens, invalidated Arks claim. The government of California and the Federal Government supported that position.

Because Scotus decided to legislate from the bench, and applied a broad ruling as opposed to the narrow ruling, they wiped out not only precedent, but federal law.

originally posted by: rnaa
It doesn't matter that YOU want it to only apply to former slaves - the words of the Constitution says that it applies to ALL persons - and there is no way that you can read it otherwise.

All your wishing and carrying on and wanton attempts to spread false narratives about the Constitution hoping to capture a few like-minded minds is just an unAmerican attempt to divide the People of the UNITED States along racial lines.

You are entitled to your opinion, but remember that your opinion can be wrong - and in this case it is very wrong.

You have a severe problem with your liberal left logic. Let me be clear so you get it.

* - I am not a racist.
* - I am not unamerican.

You can take those 2 points you try to attack me with and shove them up your ass.

I am educated, specifically in Political Science Public law and Criminal Justice. I do law enforcement and treat every person I come into contact with as a person and with respect (u shld try it), regardless of their history or where they are from. Understanding the laws, both at the state level and the Federal level, provides me with a unique view. I am obligated to refuse to comply with any unconstitutional or illegal order from Superiors. I am required, both by law and my chosen profession, to be knowledgeable of not only the laws, but how our Government works - ALL of it. From municipal, to County, to State up to Federal. Understanding our history is a HUGE piece of that, regardless of your unhinged racist bull#.

You seem to have a problem with educated people and that is something you will have to work on yourself. The more you throw your bull# accusations around while ignoring the laws and the Constitution (Federal and State), the more people will ignore what it is you are trying to claim.

As I said, and I will repeat it now - You can take your leftist liberal logic bull#, holier than thou better than everyone attitude and shove it up your ass.

(cont)

Just like Roe v. Wade, a Scotus ruling can be overturned, like Ark when the illegal immigrant problem starts affecting domestic policy at astronomical levels, as its doing now.

I am not anti immigrant. I am anti illegal immigration.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and again you ignore historical fact and use your opinion, which doesnt fly. If it was not geared towards black slaves and their children, then why was it a requirement for only Southern States to adopt the 14th amendment in order to rejoin the Union? Maybe it had to do with the fact that Southern states, even after losing the civil war, still tried to legislate in order to keep black slaves.

Exactly where does opinion come into the difference in meaning between "All Persons" and "Black Persons" (or "Former Slaves" or whatever you think it is secretly supposed to mean)?

Hint: IT DOESENT. The word "All" means ALL. It does not mean "All former slaves", and it never has, and it never will. There is no opinion involved in reading that word.

Secondly foreigners visiting this country are not all subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Or did you forget that Ambassadors and their families are specifically carved out. Even if an Ambassador, or family member of, gives birth, they dont get US Citizenship.

That is correct, and I said so in my first post.

That's the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Foreign Diplomats (not just Ambassadors) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States legal system (except by agreement by their own country). That's where the term "Diplomatic Immunity" comes from.

The City of New York has lots of unpaid traffic tickets by UN Ambassadors. On the other hand, if some Ambassador killed someone, the US would sure try to get the foreign country to allow them to be handled by the US system, but that is not a sure thing. Many diplomats have been recalled home to avoid serious charges.

But you seem to have forgotten the part about invading armies and Indians not taxed. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States either.

Tourists and merchant sailors and refugees and etc. most certainly ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are in the United States.

The "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is the exception to the "All Persons" rule, it is not some magical redefinition of the word "All" that changes its meaning to "Black Persons".

As I said in the Scotus ruling for Wong Kim Ark, the governments position was simple. Because Arks parents, who lived in the US but retained their loyalty to the Chinese Empire who then moved back to China without ever becoming US Citizens, invalidated Arks claim. The government of California and the Federal Government supported that position.

Because Scotus decided to legislate from the bench, and applied a broad ruling as opposed to the narrow ruling, they wiped out not only precedent, but federal law.

How else does SCOTUS decide? They sit at a bench and they decide. There was no "legislation" involved, only interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark was decided absolutely correctly. His parents were in the United States not as Diplomats, not as an Invading Army, and not as Indians Not Taxed. The Wongs were welcomed into the United States and lived and worked for many years in the United States under "the jurisdiction of the United States". During that time, their son Kim Ark was born.

Wong Kim Ark was one of the All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As am I. Although I am not currently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because I live overseas.

The reason that the United States and the State of California argued the case was because at the time WKA sought to return to the US after accompanying his parents to their home country, the Asian exclusion act was in effect, a shameful, racist act - and they were seeking to enforce its shameful, racist purpose. If WKA was not a citizen then the act would exclude him. However his parents were welcomed into America BEFORE the act passed, and in fact he was born before the act took place, and anyway, the Constitution takes precedence over a mere legislated law.

Since WKA was a US citizen, he could not be prevented from returning to his home, no matter what the Asian Exclusion Act intended.

And just to be clear: WKA was a BORN CITIZEN, that is, a Natural Born Citizen. Not only could his citizenship not be stripped from him, but he was 100% eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between a specific problem and the solution to that problem. I'll help you out: it is similar to cause and effect. Sometime a cause produces effects that can temporarily fixed by painting over them, like a crack in a wall, but sometimes you are better served by knocking down the wall and building it on a firmer foundation.

Yes, the specific problem (the cause) was the denial of citizenship to former slaves due to the Dred Scott decision.

Yes, the solution to the issue was the 14th amendment, but the authors didn't want to keep amending the Constitution every time another group was mistakenly denied citizenship (a temporary fix) so they fixed the problem for once and for all.

To accomplish this they used the word "ALL". NOT "Black". NOT "Former Slaves". They used the work "ALL"

"ALL" means "ALL" There is no opinion involved in figuring out what "ALL means.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am educated, specifically in Political Science Public law and Criminal Justice. I do law enforcement and treat every person I come into contact with as a person and with respect (u shld try it), regardless of their history or where they are from. Understanding the laws, both at the state level and the Federal level, provides me with a unique view. I am obligated to refuse to comply with any unconstitutional or illegal order from Superiors. I am required, both by law and my chosen profession, to be knowledgeable of not only the laws, but how our Government works - ALL of it. From municipal, to County, to State up to Federal. Understanding our history is a HUGE piece of that, regardless of your unhinged racist bull#.

That may all be true. However, the entire concept that "WKA is wrong and the phrase 'All Persons' means only 'Former Slaves'" bull# is straight out of the racist attacks on Barack Obama. It was 'invented' because opponents couldn't say "he can't be President because he's black" so they looked for a surrogate way to say it. They found that claiming disqualification because his father was not a citizen sounded sufficiently 'legalistic' and 'based in the Constitution' that it just might fool a few rubes and capture their minds. Of course they tried several other failing, lying gambits as well.

But most folks, even ones that were attracted to the idea from a non-racist point-of-view have abandoned the 'lost cause' years ago. It appears that the con worked on you too well and you haven't been able to let it go.

The upshot is that Obama's father's citizenship was immaterial to Obama's citizenship then, and the citizenship of parents who are under the jurisdiction of the USA is immaterial to the citizenship of their child now.

The whole argument was born out of racism and un-American animosity and continuing to pursue it is still racism and un-American animosity towards those whose citizenship you are trying to deny.

You seem to have a problem with educated people and that is something you will have to work on yourself. The more you throw your bull# accusations around while ignoring the laws and the Constitution (Federal and State), the more people will ignore what it is you are trying to claim.

On the contrary, I have no problem with educated people. I have a problem with people who claim education and yet have no underlying understanding of the topic in which they claim to be educated. Or worse, who claim superior understanding of topics they are not actually educated in.

You are the one that is ignoring the laws and the Constitution, you are the one who is telling the entire readership of this thread (all 2 of them, I suppose) that you don't understand the meaning of a simple word like 'All'. Be truthful now: how educated can you be if you don't understand the word 'all'?

Continuing to insist that the word "ALL" means "former slaves" (or some variation) is you ignoring the laws and the Constitution, because "ALL" simply means ALL. Your insistence belies your claims of 'education'.

Education is a lot more than getting a piece of paper that says you attended school. If you don't understand the meaning and reason for your professional rules, then following those rules doesn't mean you are educated - it just means you are self-interested in keeping your job.

There are a lot of people who follow rules because they are rules and take oaths because they are required. Many of those people attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Many of those people chant "Support the Blue" and then hit them with fire extinguishers, spray them with bear repellant, hit them with batons and spears disguised as flag poles. And some of those 'patriots' had taken oaths too, some were police, some were military reservists, some were on active duty with the military. Some of those "flag poles" were decorated with the battle flag of a losing rebel army - a flag that never got anywhere near the U.S. Capitol during the life of that rebellion.

Those people called themselves 'patriots'. They call themselves "American saviors". They are anything but.

I am not suggesting that you are one of those traitorous assholes, but if traitors can call themselves 'patriots' (and seemingly get away with it) then why shouldn't you be acknowledged as what you are? Someone who denies the clear, unambiguous, words of the U. S. Constitution? Isn't it un-American to deny the Constitution? Seems to me that you fit the word more than the insurrectionists fit the word 'Patriot'.

Maybe it will help if I point out that "Un-American" does NOT mean "anti-American". I would never accuse you of that (those self-styled 'patriots' are another matter however). I know you have trouble with understanding words, but please look up the difference in the dictionary if this is a step too far.

When the words in the Constitution are ambiguous, well then, sure, have a discussion and take it to the Supreme Court if need be.

But the word "all" is clear and unambiguous. Even so, it has been discussed several times even in the Supreme Court. However even in the case you cite, WKA, the dispute wasn't about the word 'all', it was about the 'subject to the jurisdiction'.

P.S. Just before I hit 'reply' just now, I noticed your claim that you have a "unique view". Wow. Unique? You are the only one in the country that understands Federal and State law? Really? And you are accusing me of writing things that detract from my believe-ability?

originally posted by: rnaa
Exactly where does opinion come into the difference in meaning between "All Persons" and "Black Persons" (or "Former Slaves" or whatever you think it is secretly supposed to mean)?

From multiple Scotus rulings over the years. For example illegal aliens and foreign nationals are not completely covered by the US Constitution. Foreign Nationals cannot vote in our elections even though the constitution says the right cant be abridged. Illegal aliens don't have a right to have a lawyer appointed to them by the courts. Illegal aliens and foreign nationals dont have 2nd amendment rights and as a matter of fact and law they are prohibited from being in possession of certain types of weapons, even if the possession is accidental. An example would be a gun being found. It is illegal for illegal aliens / foreign nationals to be in possession of the found gun.

originally posted by: rnaa
Hint: IT DOESENT. The word "All" means ALL. It does not mean "All former slaves", and it never has, and it never will. There is no opinion involved in reading that word.

HINT: It does not completely apply to illegal aliens and foreign nationals. That is NOT an opinion but rather a FACT and is the law. Just like in Canada, if a person enters the the US illegally extradition treaties no longer apply. The person can be deported immediately and does not get all of due process.

originally posted by: rnaa
That is correct, and I said so in my first post.

So in other words the Constitution does not apply to everyone - check.

originally posted by: rnaa
That's the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Foreign Diplomats (not just Ambassadors) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States legal system (except by agreement by their own country). That's where the term "Diplomatic Immunity" comes from.

An overly broad and generic example on your part. There are different types of Diplomatic Immunity and the application depends on the person and the situation - so again you are wrong.

originally posted by: rnaa
The City of New York has lots of unpaid traffic tickets by UN Ambassadors. On the other hand, if some Ambassador killed someone, the US would sure try to get the foreign country to allow them to be handled by the US system, but that is not a sure thing. Many diplomats have been recalled home to avoid serious charges.

Yup Diplomats ignore NYC law when it comes to traffic citations (to include parking). What usually happens is the City of NY eventually gets pissed enough and starts towing the cars to an impound lot. While rare, it does happen and it quickly escalates to the President because the UN Secretary General usually gets involved. As for arresting Diplomats, again it depends on the person and the type of Diplomatic immunity they have and the nature of the crime. At the top levels of Diplomatic Immunity the person cannot be charged. However they can be detained / arrested until their diplomatic status is verified through the US State Department. If we want to prosecute a diplomat we ask his country to waive diplomatic immunity. If they decline we usually give the Diplomat 72 hours to leave the country and they are labeled "persona non grata".

originally posted by: rnaa
But you seem to have forgotten the part about invading armies and Indians not taxed. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States either.

Native Americans are classified as US Citizens and they are subject to Federal Taxes. For more education I refer you to the IRS-ITG. As for invading armies we shall see how that works for illegal aliens in Texas, being they just declared the illegal aliens an invading army.

originally posted by: rnaa
Tourists and merchant sailors and refugees and etc. most certainly ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are in the United States.

All 3 groups are completely different from each other and different laws, both Federal as well as Maritime.

originally posted by: rnaa
The "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is the exception to the "All Persons" rule, it is not some magical redefinition of the word "All" that changes its meaning to "Black Persons".

and Yet Black slaves were NOT considered people but rather as property. You can try to obfuscate all you want but it does not change the history nor the intent of the 14th amendment. Something that you cant seem to understand. That attitude tells me you are ok with the destruction of Confederate General Statues.

originally posted by: rnaa
How else does SCOTUS decide? They sit at a bench and they decide. There was no "legislation" involved, only interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark was decided absolutely correctly. His parents were in the United States not as Diplomats, not as an Invading Army, and not as Indians Not Taxed. The Wongs were welcomed into the United States and lived and worked for many years in the United States under "the jurisdiction of the United States". During that time, their son Kim Ark was born.

Wong Kim Ark was one of the All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As am I. Although I am not currently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because I live overseas.

and the interpretation, by the state government as well as the Federal Government and, oh, btw, 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. But hey, it only took Scotus to the 1900s to change the precedent set.

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

All your bs aside, and as I have already pointed out, the US Constitution does not apply to everyone and the examples were provided. What would come next is for you to admit you are wrong, to learn and to move on with increased knowledge.

The Constitution does NOT apply to everyone, as has already been stated. It sounds to me like you are the one incapable of learning how our Constitution works and how it is applied.

You need to work on that issue of yours.

a reply to: rnaa

As I have already said, and supplied you with examples, you really need to educate yourself on how the Constitution works.

You also need to quit doing the liberal left lack of logic. Its old and does not work.