|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 18, 2010 14:36:24 GMT -5
One of the key Tea/Republican talking points has long been to strictly adhere to the US Constitution as it was written. In fact, much of the GOP opposition to Solicitor General Elena Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court is because of their irrational fear that she would try to "interpret" the Constitution rather than strictly enforce it. Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, even charged that Kagan might "use her post to mold the law to her liberal beliefs". That's a pretty strong accusation. However just today Mr. Sessions just stated "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen." "The Constitution is not as clear as it first appears," Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) told reporters Tuesday. "I continue to hear good Americans explain to me they think it makes no sense." Now I have my own opinions on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and I am not interesting in debating it here. However it seems that Mr. Sessions is doing quite a bit of Constitutional "interpreting" of his own - no? dfx PS. Would the last line of Mr. Sessons' statement be applicable to the 2nd Amendment if "good Americans" also thought it too didn't make sense? Again I have my own opinions on the 2nd Amendment, but I guess I'm confused as to where the line is drawn on interpreting the Constitution and who is responsible for drawing it? Tea/Republicans can't have it both ways... PSS. I wish there were some Freehold news going on right now, I'm getting tired of this... Oh -- and on the issue of hypocrisy -- here is Harry Reid -- US Senator and dem majority leader on illegal immigration and birthright citizenship. www.youtube.com/watch?v=75a9Wa6KL7k |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 18, 2010 15:11:18 GMT -5
First, you stated without argument or proof that the 14th amendmant "never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That is WRONG. and it has no proof or fact attached to it just a statement acting as fact and patently incorrect assertion.. Second, you changed the argument from your patently incorrect assertion that the 14th amendment only concidered birth right citizenship for freed slave to an argument about legislative intent by first misrepresenting the process of legislative interpertation and then by misrepresenting what I said. I see no place above that I said "that legislative history is not permitted." (You implied that position from using half of a sentence.) I did say "if the plan meanings of the words of the legislation or amendment are clear then then the use of legislative history, floor speeches, and other legislative intent is not proper. The reason for this as you are will aware is because legislation and amendments are born of compromise." So as is often the case you are telling me what my position and telling me I am wrong. That is a fact. To quote from "Finding the Law" 12 edition Thomas West. By Berring and Edigner Page 166 "When you have found a statute, your process often is not complete. Statutory language can be vague or ambiguous... How you interpret a word or a phrase can determine the outcome on many issues." NOTE THE LANGUAGE "OFTEN IS NOT COMPLETE" "Statutes may be difficult to interpret for several reasons. The imprecision of the English language...change of circumstances...poor drafting... Finally, confusion can be introduced by a conscious decision on the part of the legislative body ... by using language ambiguous enough to be acceptable to each contending party." " Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court is quite hostile to the use" And he say it should not be used so your assertation that as You said In virtually every state, and most certainly in the Supreme Court, the use of legislative history is routine -- and essential -- to legislative interpretation and legislative intent, particulary of statutes or state and federal constitutions and treaties. You also said that Some element of interpretation is necessary in many great pieces of writing -- from recently written statutes to our venerable Constitution. People who say otherwise are fools.Not according to your boy Scalia...therfore another false assertation without fact. (Now I disagree with Justice Scalia, I think legislative intent and interpertation is important WHEN the plain language is not clear. NEXT, I shall go on with my proof that your claims are incorrect. From The New England Law College www.nesl.edu/research/rsguides/web1.htmWhat is legislative history? Legislative history consists of all the legislative events which occurred in the process of enacting (or defeating) proposed legislation, including all available documentation created during this process. These include the bill, its redrafts, testimony at hearings, reports or studies commissioned by the legislature, the chronology of voting, floor debate, the executive's message upon signing the bill or vetoing it. Sometimes the phrase "legislative history" is used as a synonym for "bill tracking", that is tracing the steps that have been taken in pending legislation. What is the relationship between a "legislative history" and legislation? Legislative history is not primary, mandatory authority. Only enacted legislation itself is controlling law.Why, then, would a litigant or judge refer to legislative history in a brief or an opinion? Legislative history is one tool a court may use to interpret ambiguous statutory language or to determine the intent of the legislature in writing the law and wording it in the way it did. This interpretive function is called "statutory construction." The most basic canon of statutory construction is that a court should begin interpreting a statute by looking at its "plain language." Now apon reading that you must conced that one must first look the the plain meaning of the words. "All persons" is plain as can be. Our analizis of that is complete. Shall we move on: The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", however are not clear on the face and require additional legislative interpretation. With that being the case you look the customs and laws of the day, floor speeches, committee write up, and how the writers of the language in question would have viewed the words by examining there actions. Here it is clear that the 14th amendment applied to more than just freed slaves. The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens. Finally a friendly jab, I do not understand the constant use of you resume in debate. It is an odd technique. I understood the sarcastic back and for with Dan earlier in this thread but I have seen it before and this additional resume drop seems superfluous. Do you think it will make me just stop and think, shucks, my years of education means nothing, I must be wrong because ______(fill in the name) said so? Especially when I can pull a book of my shelf and find my answer. Do you think I post before I check my facts? I know the 'I am a lawyer and you are not so I obviously know more than you' routine very very well, if you only knew my father. lol That did not work with me when I was a youth, it surely will not work now. Also what proof did you put forth that requires me to put forth proof. You made the initial statement that I was responding to, you said that the 14th amendment only applied to freed slaves) without any proof or support just your assertion of fact. You also made statements in post 4 about a number of issues without fact that you want us to accept as fact but without support. Touché Legislative history is one tool a court may use to interpret ambiguous statutory language or to determine the intent of the legislature in writing the law and wording it in the way it did. This interpretive function is called "statutory construction." That is from your piece. That is all I have argued -- and I appreciate you substantiating my opinion. I have also said that not every state allows it. I know this, because Viginia does not. I also recognize that not every Justice uses legislative history -- Scalia being one who claims he does not -- but often makes his "originalist" opinions based on the "plain meaning" of a statute as understood at that time -- as reflected by the intent of the drafters. So, my friend Antonin exaggerates a bit. He likes to do that. He once told me in an abortion discussion that, "the declaration of independence is a nice puff piece, but it is not the law." Indeed it is not. Anyway -- I have never tried to argue that legislative history must be used, or that it is the only method used. Indeed, you properly quote me as saying it is not used by some states. It is you who first said that it is never used. I am glad you have corrected that view -- and now find yourself in agreement with my position. :-) I do -- BTW -- completely agree that statutory construction first looks at the plain meaning of words, and more importantly, at the definitions and other uses of terms -- as well as any conflicts with out interpretations of similar statutes. You are changing your position. You said it is routine and essential, I said it should only be used if the plain meaning is not clear. I never said it should never be used. Please stick to the fact as they are. As most of what I have written in the back and forth has been cutting and pasting from my orgional post I would suggest you have corrected your view and are now in agreement with my position regarding the proper use of legislative history in interpertation. You have still put forth no proof of your orginal assertion that the 14th amendment only applied to freed slaves. What I intially commented about. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Aug 19, 2010 7:18:14 GMT -5
This is, of course, incomprehensible. You right -- in bold -- that the purpose of this chain was to point out that "tea/Republicans" (a name you made up) selectively interpret some Amendments. But you also say, your post has nothing to do with Constitutional Amendments. It is hard to debate with someone who is confused about what it is he or she is debating. I don't think there is any doubt that your post was designed to do the following: 1. identify all republicans as Tea/republicans -- with the connotation in your mind that "Tea" makes them weird, crazy, or crackpots -- by definition. 2. Note that these type of republicans are hypocrites. (Politicians as hypocrites in either party is pretty easy to agree with) Alas -- in your effort to save your own thread and return it from substantive debate to political accusation -- you forgot your own original post where you admitted that you were "confused" about interpretation. Most of this thread was aimed at trying to help unconfuse you -- as I am sure the purpose of the thread was honest debate on the issue of interpretation, and not mere political smear on the issue of political hypocrisy. Sorry for the delayed response, but the wireless signal is very weak down here in OBX. That said, I can see even from here that I need to once again restate my position as I've been informed it's "incomprehensible". 1. The purpose of this posting is/was not to espouse my personal beliefs as it pertains to individual Constitutional Amendments. That could be a whole different thread. The purpose of this posting was to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim that Constitution Amendments can/should not ever be updated, yet then propose to update a Constitutional Amendment when it fits their political agenda. 2. As this post continued, I also questioned the validity of the argument that it's permissible to alter "some" Constitutional Amendments (Amendments 11-27) , but not others (Amendments 1-10). In my opinion the argument that a certain defined set of Amendments are open to interpretation - but others are not - was never specified anywhere and therefor is an invalid defense. 3. I routinely lump members of the "Tea" and Republican parties together as in my opinion they are almost indistinguishable. (Aside from the fact that leading Republican fundraisers - such as former Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin - routinely identify themselves as Tea Party members, a whopping 77% of Tea Party members themselves have self-identified themselves as Republicans.) If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish, tastes like a fish, I believe it's a fish... dfx |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 19, 2010 8:49:12 GMT -5
Legislative history is one tool a court may use to interpret ambiguous statutory language or to determine the intent of the legislature in writing the law and wording it in the way it did. This interpretive function is called "statutory construction." That is from your piece. That is all I have argued -- and I appreciate you substantiating my opinion. I have also said that not every state allows it. I know this, because Viginia does not. I also recognize that not every Justice uses legislative history -- Scalia being one who claims he does not -- but often makes his "originalist" opinions based on the "plain meaning" of a statute as understood at that time -- as reflected by the intent of the drafters. So, my friend Antonin exaggerates a bit. He likes to do that. He once told me in an abortion discussion that, "the declaration of independence is a nice puff piece, but it is not the law." Indeed it is not. Anyway -- I have never tried to argue that legislative history must be used, or that it is the only method used. Indeed, you properly quote me as saying it is not used by some states. It is you who first said that it is never used. I am glad you have corrected that view -- and now find yourself in agreement with my position. :-) I do -- BTW -- completely agree that statutory construction first looks at the plain meaning of words, and more importantly, at the definitions and other uses of terms -- as well as any conflicts with out interpretations of similar statutes. You are changing your position. You said it is routine and essential, I said it should only be used if the plain meaning is not clear. I never said it should never be used. Please stick to the fact as they are. As most of what I have written in the back and forth has been cutting and pasting from my orgional post I would suggest you have corrected your view and are now in agreement with my position regarding the proper use of legislative history in interpertation. You have still put forth no proof of your orginal assertion that the 14th amendment only applied to freed slaves. What I intially commented about. I have provided you with a link to some initial reading on the matter -- let me know when you are done with that -- I will provide you additional material. As a fact you will find with some honest effort -- shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the US Congress later passed a law granting citizenship to American Indians. That seems curious -- why would they have to do that if the 14th Amendment gave birthright citizenship to everyone at the time of its passing? Hmm... maybe the people who actually passed the 14th Amendment knew why they passed the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 19, 2010 9:25:52 GMT -5
Your response makes no sense. You are changing your position. You said it is routine and essential, I said it should only be used if the plain meaning is not clear. I never said it should never be used. Please stick to the fact as they are. As most of what I have written in the back and forth has been cutting and pasting from my orgional post I would suggest you have corrected your view and are now in agreement with my position regarding the proper use of legislative history in interpertation. You have still put forth no proof of your orginal assertion that the 14th amendment only applied to freed slaves. What I intially commented about. I have provided you with a link to some initial reading on the matter -- let me know when you are done with that -- I will provide you additional material. As a fact you will find with some honest effort -- shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the US Congress later passed a law granting citizenship to American Indians. That seems curious -- why would they have to do that if the 14th Amendment gave birthright citizenship to everyone at the time of its passing? Hmm... maybe the people who actually passed the 14th Amendment knew why they passed the 14th Amendment. Richard yet again you have not read what I have posted now at least 5 times so I will post it again. The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens. The link you provide carrys no weight, It is a nice page, but what credentials makes it authority that should be concidered. You have still put forth no proof of your orginal assertion that the 14th amendment only applied to freed slaves. What I intially commented about. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 19, 2010 10:53:22 GMT -5
I have provided you with a link to some initial reading on the matter -- let me know when you are done with that -- I will provide you additional material. As a fact you will find with some honest effort -- shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the US Congress later passed a law granting citizenship to American Indians. That seems curious -- why would they have to do that if the 14th Amendment gave birthright citizenship to everyone at the time of its passing? Hmm... maybe the people who actually passed the 14th Amendment knew why they passed the 14th Amendment. The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens. You've said nothing new. I have read your post over and over again -- and it does not address the drafting of the 14th Amendment. Now -- you finally admit that "All persons" is not "All persons. Thank you. You say: "Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens." What is the support for this? All persons is either all persons -- or it is not? If it is not, then we have to know about what persons they were speaking. here is a classic example of the failure of your "plain meaning" test. This is exactly why we use leglislative history and original intent when the plain meaning is clearly not plain. Don't take my word for it: www.huffingtonpost.com/george-kenney/further-parsing-birthrigh_b_682847.htmland here: (feel free to read the links, sources, and cases) www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.htmlAt a minimum, it seems clear that your "plain meaning" and the actual plain meaning may be different. This is why we use other tools to divine intent. |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 19, 2010 12:20:27 GMT -5
Richard, All I have done is cut and past my earlier statements. Clearly you will twist and turn to avoid reality. I have said the same thing since the start. Lets make this clear You made the claim, without support in reply 4 regarding the 14th amendment "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That was a statement which is FALSE, Posted without support My first post on this topic simply called you out on that False statement and pointed out that the premise of you question was wrong because they did consider a birth right citizenship for other people beside freed slaves. That if they wanted such a limited group they would have used other words then "All Persons". I made no claim that that meant everyone. You then posted "The original intent of the 14th Amendment is dead on clear -- dead on -- including the legislative intent and history. Thus, your re-interpretation and that of Mr. Friedman's hold no basis in fact." That too was a False statement, because I had made no interpretation at that point as I was pointing out what you said was wrong. You then gave Dan a particle "lesson" in legislative intent. I then pointed out the fact that if the plain meaning of the words are clear you do not need to use legislative history to determine the meaning and that in this case the plain meaning of the words all persons are clear but the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were not. I was endeavoring to point out that if AS YOU CONTINUE to claim, that the 14th amendment ONLY applied to freed slaves they would have used different language than "All person." That was the only claim I had made so far. That you were incorrect. I had made no claim about what those words meant at that point only that it was not limited ONLY to freed slaves. You the bluntly said " Actually -- you couldn't be more wrong -- dead wrong. The use of legislative history is not only permitted, but critical to the interpretation of statutes that are not clear and whose intent are in question. It is the essence of the "originalists". and gave some BS website to look at. You at that point had presented no facts, no proof, just statements masquerading as fact. All I had done was point out that you were wrong, I was not required to provide "proof" as none has been presented by you. With that you changed the argument from whether the 14th only dealt with freed slaves to the proper use of legislative history when determine the intent of the language. I then replied: (Note that this is the first time in this thread that I had issued an opinion on the topic other than pointing out that Rich is wrong) Rich Please read the whole thing this time. "If you read what I said I agree that legislative intent is critical when the statute or amendment is not clear.
My point is the words "All persons" is very clear the intent is plain, it means "ALL PERSONS".
Just because you do not like what "ALL PERSONS" means does not change the definition of the words "ALL" or "PERSONS".
Your debate is with the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” not the clause "ALL PERSONS".
The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens.
Based on the legislative intent of that clause, a clause which is not clear and therefore requires additional legislative interpretation, it is clear that at that time that a person born here by parents planning on staying here is a citizen by the fact that they were born here because if they plan on staying they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That was my post, the fist claim I made on who the 14th amendment covered. As I did not realize that this was a trial or that only I am required to provide proof for my statements I did not include the names of the Senators who said this. I now will. "During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States. So Rich you will JUMP at the Foreigners and aliens BUT before you do you must KNOW what they meant by Foreigners and aliens. SO I SHALL CONTINUE... First >"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." There is no 'and' between the comma after 'aliens' and 'who' therefore that is meant to clairfy the next clause because one who may belong to a family of an ambassador or foreign minister may also not be a foreigner as an American could have married into a family of a ambassador or foreign minister and have a child with that person. Second> "Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30th, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those " Not owing allegiance to anybody else. . . It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." This was familiar language. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had defined citizens of the United States as "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse for the passage of the fourteenth amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matters of Federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus it is clear that the idea of allegiance ("not subject to any foreign power") was somehow central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the fourteenth amendment."judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htmI rest my case. (As I was only attempting to point out that Rich's claim that "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" was wrong. I have achieved that clearly. The 14th amendment applies as I said. The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens. One other note you said, without proof just as a statement masquarding as fact, "shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the US Congress later passed a law granting citizenship to American Indians...." That took place in 1924. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act. Do you call 50 years shortly... |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 19, 2010 14:09:26 GMT -5
Richard, All I have done is cut and past my earlier statements. Clearly you will twist and turn to avoid reality. I have said the same thing since the start. Lets make this clear You made the claim, without support in reply 4 regarding the 14th amendment "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That was a statement which is FALSE, Posted without support My first post on this topic simply called you out on that False statement and pointed out that the premise of you question was wrong because they did consider a birth right citizenship for other people beside freed slaves. That if they wanted such a limited group they would have used other words then "All Persons". I made no claim that that meant everyone. You then posted "The original intent of the 14th Amendment is dead on clear -- dead on -- including the legislative intent and history. Thus, your re-interpretation and that of Mr. Friedman's hold no basis in fact." That too was a False statement, because I had made no interpretation at that point as I was pointing out what you said was wrong. You then gave Dan a particle "lesson" in legislative intent. I then pointed out the fact that if the plain meaning of the words are clear you do not need to use legislative history to determine the meaning and that in this case the plain meaning of the words all persons are clear but the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were not. I was endeavoring to point out that if AS YOU CONTINUE to claim, that the 14th amendment ONLY applied to freed slaves they would have used different language than "All person." That was the only claim I had made so far. That you were incorrect. I had made no claim about what those words meant at that point only that it was not limited ONLY to freed slaves. You the bluntly said " Actually -- you couldn't be more wrong -- dead wrong. The use of legislative history is not only permitted, but critical to the interpretation of statutes that are not clear and whose intent are in question. It is the essence of the "originalists". and gave some BS website to look at. You at that point had presented no facts, no proof, just statements masquerading as fact. All I had done was point out that you were wrong, I was not required to provide "proof" as none has been presented by you. With that you changed the argument from whether the 14th only dealt with freed slaves to the proper use of legislative history when determine the intent of the language. I then replied: (Note that this is the first time in this thread that I had issued an opinion on the topic other than pointing out that Rich is wrong) Rich Please read the whole thing this time. "If you read what I said I agree that legislative intent is critical when the statute or amendment is not clear.
My point is the words "All persons" is very clear the intent is plain, it means "ALL PERSONS".
Just because you do not like what "ALL PERSONS" means does not change the definition of the words "ALL" or "PERSONS".
Your debate is with the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” not the clause "ALL PERSONS".
The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens.
Based on the legislative intent of that clause, a clause which is not clear and therefore requires additional legislative interpretation, it is clear that at that time that a person born here by parents planning on staying here is a citizen by the fact that they were born here because if they plan on staying they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That was my post, the fist claim I made on who the 14th amendment covered. As I did not realize that this was a trial or that only I am required to provide proof for my statements I did not include the names of the Senators who said this. I now will. "During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States. So Rich you will JUMP at the Foreigners and aliens BUT before you do you must KNOW what they meant by Foreigners and aliens. SO I SHALL CONTINUE... "Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30th, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those " Not owing allegiance to anybody else. . . It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." This was familiar language. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had defined citizens of the United States as "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse for the passage of the fourteenth amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matters of Federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus it is clear that the idea of allegiance ("not subject to any foreign power") was somehow central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the fourteenth amendment."judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htmI rest my case. (As I was only attempting to point out that Rich's claim that "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" was wrong. I have achieved that clearly. The 14th amendment applies as I said. The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens. One other note you said, without proof just as a statement masquarding as fact, "shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the US Congress later passed a law granting citizenship to American Indians...." That took place in 1924. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act. Do you call 50 years shortly... Your post has done two things. First -- it proved my point that the "plain meaning" of the 14th Amendment is not plain. Second -- it likewise proved that you refuse to read, analyze, and address the links and materials I already provided -- which come to a completely opposite result. Those include -- of course -- US Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, you have "caught me." Indians born here were not granted citizenship until 1924. I agree. So for more than 50 years it was clear that "all persons" did not include, as you claim, all persons. Indeed, as you may be aware, the 14th Amendment was absolutely necessary because the Dred Scott decision was the "law of the Land" and it had defined, Constitutionally, slaves as something other than citizens. I will take your failure to address the relevant case law cited as proof of the correctness of my position. And, I am quite certain that this debate serves as undisputed proof that there is not agreement on what the "plain language" of the 14th Amendment is. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 19, 2010 14:17:36 GMT -5
Richard, All I have done is cut and past my earlier statements. Clearly you will twist and turn to avoid reality. I have said the same thing since the start. Lets make this clear You made the claim, without support in reply 4 regarding the 14th amendment "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That was a statement which is FALSE, Posted without support My first post on this topic simply called you out on that False statement and pointed out that the premise of you question was wrong because they did consider a birth right citizenship for other people beside freed slaves. That if they wanted such a limited group they would have used other words then "All Persons". I made no claim that that meant everyone. You then posted "The original intent of the 14th Amendment is dead on clear -- dead on -- including the legislative intent and history. Thus, your re-interpretation and that of Mr. Friedman's hold no basis in fact." That too was a False statement, because I had made no interpretation at that point as I was pointing out what you said was wrong. You then gave Dan a particle "lesson" in legislative intent. I then pointed out the fact that if the plain meaning of the words are clear you do not need to use legislative history to determine the meaning and that in this case the plain meaning of the words all persons are clear but the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were not. I was endeavoring to point out that if AS YOU CONTINUE to claim, that the 14th amendment ONLY applied to freed slaves they would have used different language than "All person." That was the only claim I had made so far. That you were incorrect. I had made no claim about what those words meant at that point only that it was not limited ONLY to freed slaves. You the bluntly said " Actually -- you couldn't be more wrong -- dead wrong. The use of legislative history is not only permitted, but critical to the interpretation of statutes that are not clear and whose intent are in question. It is the essence of the "originalists". and gave some BS website to look at. You at that point had presented no facts, no proof, just statements masquerading as fact. All I had done was point out that you were wrong, I was not required to provide "proof" as none has been presented by you. With that you changed the argument from whether the 14th only dealt with freed slaves to the proper use of legislative history when determine the intent of the language. I then replied: (Note that this is the first time in this thread that I had issued an opinion on the topic other than pointing out that Rich is wrong) Rich Please read the whole thing this time. "If you read what I said I agree that legislative intent is critical when the statute or amendment is not clear.
My point is the words "All persons" is very clear the intent is plain, it means "ALL PERSONS".
Just because you do not like what "ALL PERSONS" means does not change the definition of the words "ALL" or "PERSONS".
Your debate is with the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” not the clause "ALL PERSONS".
The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens.
Based on the legislative intent of that clause, a clause which is not clear and therefore requires additional legislative interpretation, it is clear that at that time that a person born here by parents planning on staying here is a citizen by the fact that they were born here because if they plan on staying they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That was my post, the fist claim I made on who the 14th amendment covered. As I did not realize that this was a trial or that only I am required to provide proof for my statements I did not include the names of the Senators who said this. I now will. "During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States. So Rich you will JUMP at the Foreigners and aliens BUT before you do you must KNOW what they meant by Foreigners and aliens. SO I SHALL CONTINUE... "Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30th, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those " Not owing allegiance to anybody else. . . It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." This was familiar language. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had defined citizens of the United States as "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse for the passage of the fourteenth amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matters of Federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus it is clear that the idea of allegiance ("not subject to any foreign power") was somehow central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the fourteenth amendment."judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htmI rest my case. (As I was only attempting to point out that Rich's claim that "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" was wrong. I have achieved that clearly. The 14th amendment applies as I said. The clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does limit the “all persons” clause but that did not limit it to freed slaves. (The argument you keep insisting on making even though the plain meaning of the clause is clear) At the time the drafters of the amendment believed that you were a citizen of the United States if you had no other allegiance to another power. Therefore visitors who had not intention of staying, diplomats, Native American Indians, and those who renounce their allegiance to the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and not citizens. Those were the only exclusions at the time of the drafting. All others born here were therefore citizens. One other note you said, without proof just as a statement masquarding as fact, "shortly after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the US Congress later passed a law granting citizenship to American Indians...." That took place in 1924. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act. Do you call 50 years shortly... Your post has done two things. First -- it proved my point that the "plain meaning" of the 14th Amendment is not plain. Second -- it likewise proved that you refuse to read, analyze, and address the links and materials I already provided -- which come to a completely opposite result. Those include -- of course -- US Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, you have "caught me." Indians born here were not granted citizenship until 1924. I agree. So for more than 50 years it was clear that "all persons" did not include, as you claim, all persons. Indeed, as you may be aware, the 14th Amendment was absolutely necessary because the Dred Scott decision was the "law of the Land" and it had defined, Constitutionally, slaves as something other than citizens. I will take your failure to address the relevant case law cited as proof of the correctness of my position. And, I am quite certain that this debate serves as undisputed proof that there is not agreement on what the "plain language" of the 14th Amendment is. :-) Richard, You made the claim, without support in reply 4 regarding the 14th amendment "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That is false. That was my only point. I have proved that point clearly. The only point I endevored to make when I posted. Yoru other "points" are the fog used to avoid the initial False statment. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 19, 2010 14:30:58 GMT -5
Your post has done two things. First -- it proved my point that the "plain meaning" of the 14th Amendment is not plain. Second -- it likewise proved that you refuse to read, analyze, and address the links and materials I already provided -- which come to a completely opposite result. Those include -- of course -- US Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, you have "caught me." Indians born here were not granted citizenship until 1924. I agree. So for more than 50 years it was clear that "all persons" did not include, as you claim, all persons. Indeed, as you may be aware, the 14th Amendment was absolutely necessary because the Dred Scott decision was the "law of the Land" and it had defined, Constitutionally, slaves as something other than citizens. I will take your failure to address the relevant case law cited as proof of the correctness of my position. And, I am quite certain that this debate serves as undisputed proof that there is not agreement on what the "plain language" of the 14th Amendment is. :-) Richard, You made the claim, without support in reply 4 regarding the 14th amendment "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That is false. That was my only point. I have proved that point clearly. The only point I endevored to make when I posted. Yoru other "points" are the fog used to avoid the initial False statment. Well -- let me see if this helps you a bit. This is from a Yale Law Professor. The point he makes is more eloquent than mine -- but the same. In fact, if we are going to debate levels of wrongness -- I will accept that my written statement that the 14th never considered birthright citizenship for anyone other than free slaves is not entirely correct. It is plain that it gave birthright citizenship to anyone in the Country at that time -- except, of course, American Indians. I hope you will likewise consider that "all persons" doesn't and didn't mean "all persons." In fact, without spoiling the article for you, it is clear to this professor and subsequent Courts, that the 14th Amendment never considered future illegal aliens because we had no immigration laws at the time. The professor explains the point better. I don't necessarily agree with his proposed outcome -- though I do agree with the previous authorities I posted that would allow the Congress to regulate this matter short of an Amendment. In fact, there is no need to Amend that which does not address the issue at hand. www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 19, 2010 14:46:20 GMT -5
Richard, You made the claim, without support in reply 4 regarding the 14th amendment "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?" That is false. That was my only point. I have proved that point clearly. The only point I endevored to make when I posted. Yoru other "points" are the fog used to avoid the initial False statment. Well -- let me see if this helps you a bit. This is from a Yale Law Professor. The point he makes is more eloquent than mine -- but the same. In fact, if we are going to debate levels of wrongness -- I will accept that my written statement that the 14th never considered birthright citizenship for anyone other than free slaves is not entirely correct. It is plain that it gave birthright citizenship to anyone in the Country at that time -- except, of course, American Indians. I hope you will likewise consider that "all persons" doesn't and didn't mean "all persons." In fact, without spoiling the article for you, it is clear to this professor and subsequent Courts, that the 14th Amendment never considered future illegal aliens because we had no immigration laws at the time. The professor explains the point better. I don't necessarily agree with his proposed outcome -- though I do agree with the previous authorities I posted that would allow the Congress to regulate this matter short of an Amendment. In fact, there is no need to Amend that which does not address the issue at hand. www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.htmlRich, I never said that "all persons" means "all persons" in a vacume. I first said it as part of a very limited response addressing the premise of your question that it only applied to freed slaves. I said All persons clearly means all persons. That was a curt response and I should have given more detail. As I also said it was modified by "subject to the jurstiction thereof", I not only concider it, I said that first. (see reply 10) I also said in reply 12 "Now whether one was planning on staying here was a much easier thing to determine and there were no immigration laws at the time but if were are going to have a discussion on the matter intellectual honesty is necessary."So you pointing out that there were no immigration laws in reply 39 does alter anything. I do not recall any discussion which I particpated in that addressed wheather or not congress can regulate this matter with or with out an amendment. So I do not know what point you are trying to make with that. Finally I am glad to see your statement "I will accept that my written statement that the 14th never considered birthright citizenship for anyone other than free slaves is not entirely correct." Which was the only point I was ever trying to make. But I must ask what the "not entirely correct" means as you were totally incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 19, 2010 15:14:34 GMT -5
Well -- let me see if this helps you a bit. This is from a Yale Law Professor. The point he makes is more eloquent than mine -- but the same. In fact, if we are going to debate levels of wrongness -- I will accept that my written statement that the 14th never considered birthright citizenship for anyone other than free slaves is not entirely correct. It is plain that it gave birthright citizenship to anyone in the Country at that time -- except, of course, American Indians. I hope you will likewise consider that "all persons" doesn't and didn't mean "all persons." In fact, without spoiling the article for you, it is clear to this professor and subsequent Courts, that the 14th Amendment never considered future illegal aliens because we had no immigration laws at the time. The professor explains the point better. I don't necessarily agree with his proposed outcome -- though I do agree with the previous authorities I posted that would allow the Congress to regulate this matter short of an Amendment. In fact, there is no need to Amend that which does not address the issue at hand. www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.htmlRich, As I never said that "all persons" means "all persons" in a vacume, I said it was modified by "subject to the jurstiction thereof", I not only concider it, I said that first. (see reply 10) I also said in reply 12 "Now whether one was planning on staying here was a much easier thing to determine and there were no immigration laws at the time but if were are going to have a discussion on the matter intellectual honesty is necessary."So you pointing out that there were no immigration laws in reply 39 does alter anything. I do not recall any discussion which I particpated in that addressed wheather or not congress can regulate this matter with or with out an amendment. So I do not know what point you are trying to make with that. Finally I am glad to see your statement "I will accept that my written statement that the 14th never considered birthright citizenship for anyone other than free slaves is not entirely correct."But I must ask what the "not entirely correct" means as you were totally incorrect. It's is quite funny how you feel you have triumphed here. You have been proven totally wrong on: 1) The use of legslative history. 2) The meaning of the 14th Amendment and "all persons" 3) The actual legislative History of the 14th Amendment with respect to its pupose. In the interest of honesty i want to be clear that I do not concede to being incorrect on any substantive point. I merely point out that I disagreeertion was meant to say the 14th Amendment does not convey birthright citizenship to illegal aliens. (a point raised by the original poster) In making that emphatic point, I said it "never considered" anyone else. In that respect I was less than precise. However -- speaking of plain meaning -- everyone here understood what I meant. It does not convey birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. The driving force of the Amendment, uncontested and unrefuted, was to convey citizenship and secure the bill of rights for freed slaves. To argue that point is an absurdity. Of course, there are people now arguing that the 14th Amendment permits gay marriage -- so you are certainly welcome to find whatever you want in that Amendment. The underlying truths remain the same -- as proven by the law I cite, the legislative history I have given: 1. The 14th Amendment was passed to address freed slaves 2. It did not give birthright citizenship to everyone -- nor was it even posited to give it to everyone. It actually excluded certain people. 3. Your "all persons" and "plain meaning" arguments are false. The issue on the right of Congress to otherwise regulate and restrict birthright citizenship -- as it did with the Indians -- is in the materials I gave you that you did not read. |
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 19, 2010 15:58:56 GMT -5
Rich,
Belive what you wish. Twist as you wish.
Your first grouping of 1, 2, 3 are wrong again.
1. Legislative intent is used when the plain meaning is not clear. The cannons say that and you have agreed.
2. I said , after a curt response(all persons means all persons) to your insane assumption that the 14th only applied to freed slaves, that all persons was modified by subject to the jursitiction thereof clause.
If you call me saying I was curt a consesson, whatever.
3. My interpertion of the 14th is backed up with proof their language, shall I post it again?
Your second group of 1,2 and 3 are rewriting the discussion as,
1. You clearly stated that the 14th only appiled to freed slaves which you have conceded was wrong.
2. Your second second point backs up the point I made from the start, that the 14th amendment was not only limited to freed slaves as you insisted so thank you.
3. Your thrid third is a red herring. I was curt with my first response but that was not a argument. As for the Plain meaning "argument" I said if the plain meaning of the words are clear then you should not use legislative history. The cannons say that, you agreed with that. I never said it is not ever used.
What I did was say was that what you said was not accurate as Justice Sclia will attest, and that you were incorrect on your statement that the 14th applied only to freed slaves.
You have conceded that and that was the only argument I made. plain and simple.
You were wrong. the 14th did not ONLY concider freed slaves. That was my point, the only point I entered this tread to make and you have conceded that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Aug 19, 2010 17:04:16 GMT -5
Finally Rich you said in your last post
1. "I disagreeertion was meant to say the 14th Amendment does not convey birthright citizenship to illegal aliens...everyone here understood what I meant."
And
2. "The issue on the right of Congress to otherwise regulate and restrict birthright citizenship -- as it did with the Indians -- is in the materials I gave you that you did not read."
I will start with the second.
As I have never doubted congress's right to regulate immigration I am not sure what you are trying to prove to me with this.
The First
Do you not understand that I commented on a that very specific comment you made, that "the legislative History of the 14th amendment never considered a birth right of citizenship for anyone other than freed slaves and the children of slaves brought here?"
You made a blanket statement as fact, you could have made that clear in your first response to me after I commented on that, now 35 posts later you say, everyone understood what you meant. As I was dispuiting that limited point all along it had to be clear before post 41 that was not the case.
|
|
