Constitution, shmonstitution….
The 14th Amendment is quite clear: Anybody born in the United States is a citizen. You can argue about its wisdom or unintended consequences, but you cannot seriously argue about its language:
““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.”
There is no equivocation, no qualification. Under that provision, even children born in this country to illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens, period. If that bothers you, if you want to change that reality, you have to change the Constitution, which contains provisions by which it can be amended.
However, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal proposes to alter the Constitution with a simple law, in effect pretending the Constitution doesn’t exist. As the Associated Press puts it:
“Under Deal’s proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.”
The fact that Deal’s solution would clearly be unconstitutional doesn’t faze him. To the contrary, he suggests that the main obstacle to his proposal is political:
“I think the current makeup of the Congress is such that this will never get a hearing and will never be an issue that we get a chance to vote on. But I think it’s important to keep the issues that are part of the immigration problem alive.”
Translation from politispeak: “I’m running for governor in a crowded Republican field, and to draw attention to myself and appeal to conservative voters, I’m more than willing to propose legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
8:02 am
I don’t remember seeing the right to kill unborn babies in the US Constitution but that didn’t keep you libs from “finding” it.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
8:07 am
As a matter of fact, the Constitution expressly prohibits abortion-
nor shall any State deprive ANY Person of Life
If you libs want to play word games with the law, why can’t Deal?
Redneck Convert
May 26th, 2009
8:09 am
Well, I don’t know why anybody would want a Mexican or Chinaman as a citizen when you got plenty of good rednecks around. We might not speak English as good as them, but we make ourselfs understood. You might could have to pay a little more to get us to work for you, but leastwise you know you’re hiring a red-blooded American. Besides, the other people work too hard and make the rest of us look bad. It’s true that once in a while one of us goes a little haywire and kills or rapes a few people or gets arrested for dope or DUI, but you can’t be perfect. Best of all, we vote Republican and help keep America for Americans. The illegals and their brood always vote librul Democrat.
Anyhow, the minute we catch a illegal having a baby we need to haul them both across the border and dump them. They breed like rabbits and pretty soon we’ll be out-voted and paying all kinds of extra taxes for these Welfare programs to support them if we don’t change things right now. Up till now I’ve been in favor of Ray McBerry on account of him saying the income tax is illegal, but I might could vote for this Nathan Deal if he don’t get weak and fold on us.
So I say we need to kick up all kind of sand about this anchor baby business and make it so we can kick all the illegals out even if their baby is born in the U.S. of A.
Have a good day everybody.
TW
May 26th, 2009
8:14 am
Babies? Sombody’s killing babies?
Call the cops!
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:16 am
Republicans already solved the illegal immigrant issues/problems/concerns by saddling us with this economy: the illegal aliens are leaving in droves and going home.
Joey
May 26th, 2009
8:20 am
What is the big deal. Deal is dealing with election retoric in the same way all other politician deal with campaigning. It is likely that Republicans will deal Deal out.
But how does Jay deal with Democrats when they offer some off the wall deal to voters? Jay will, as usual, deal with Democrats campaign deals as though they are the real deal.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:21 am
But Jay, Rep. Deal knows what the authors of the 14th amendment really thought deep-down:
From the article: “Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.”
See? since it was never intended to mean what everyone thinks it means, we get a do-over.
zip
May 26th, 2009
8:21 am
How ’bout we just enforce the laws that we already have?
Taxpayer
May 26th, 2009
8:22 am
Nathan Deal blends right in with the rest of the 20 percenters. I think he’s doing a great job of getting this part of the 20 percenter’s message out — trample the Constitution if that’s what it takes to get your way. These 20 percenters sure are amusing to watch. They sure do whine a lot though.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
8:24 am
Let’s see what the CA Supreme’s say about trying to change their state constitution via Prop 8 today…..
Nathan Deal is Andy in a bad suit.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:26 am
Andy, can you find the part in the Constitution that confers American citizenship upon an embryo? Thanks!
(Until he does, I’m going to go on assuming that bit about being “secure in their persons” in the Fourth Amendment extends to forcing women to be incubators.)
getalife
May 26th, 2009
8:26 am
Is he the one running for guv that has sex with farm animals?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:28 am
Let’s see what the CA Supreme’s say
ugh. Let’s not and say we did.
Curious Observer
May 26th, 2009
8:29 am
Obama’s Supreme Court pick is to be announced at 10:15 this morning. Get your earplugs. You’re going to be hearing some howling the rest of the day.
Taxpayer
May 26th, 2009
8:30 am
Is he the one running for guv that has sex with farm animals?
Maybe that’s how they Deal with that abstinence thing.
RB from Gwinnett
May 26th, 2009
8:31 am
zip has the right answer. If we would just enforce the laws we already have, this problem would cease. But neither party will do anything because they both want the illegals vote.
And then there is that pesky 2nd ammendment, Jay. The wording in that one seems quite clear as well, but that hasn’t stopped your bretheren from passing a multitude of gun bans and restrictions; all of which only apply to law abiding citizens.
What would be wrong with delivering illegal moms baby at the hospital and then deporting her because she should not be here in the first place?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:31 am
Is he the one running for guv that has sex with farm animals?
You’re thinking of Neal Horsley.
And it’s “had sex,” not “has sex.” Far as we know, he doesn’t do that any more.
TW
May 26th, 2009
8:32 am
zip – that would cost money. Ask that group of rightwing nazi’s who run around with guns lookin’ for illegals if they’d be willing to raise taxes to enforce the laws we now have.
This is just Deal playing the pretend card. Works well with his meth head white trash base.
ty webb
May 26th, 2009
8:37 am
Can we get a politispeak translation for “Hope and Change”?
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
8:37 am
And, of course, if the illegal immigrants are the beautiful Swedish couple who live next door that have a couple of blonde -headed blue eyed beauties – well, who cares. They work hard and are a nice family.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
8:38 am
Sotomayer, good – she looks like she’d have fun whacking Scalia upside the head with her law book.
jt
May 26th, 2009
8:39 am
The constitution is just a pesky little speed bump to the carreer politicians of the R & D party.
It is quite amusing to see the right or left defend this sacred document.
Cherry Pickers All.
Northern Songs Ltd
May 26th, 2009
8:41 am
Whiner @ 8:07: As a matter of fact, the Constitution expressly prohibits abortion-nor shall any State deprive ANY Person of Life
The I guess the Death Penalty is unconstituional also??
jt
May 26th, 2009
8:42 am
No change here.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-vow-to-delay-signing-is-subject-to-interpret/
Jay roolz Andy and RB
May 26th, 2009
8:42 am
Let the Uber whining commence… I wonder if she likes to watch “Long Dong Silver”… Hopefully she’ll NEVER ask a question in oral arguments either, like the last “conservative” minority appointed to the SCOTUS…
ewwwwwwww
AmVet
May 26th, 2009
8:43 am
Nathan Deal? What a joke.
Except here in the Moron Belt where he is a serious candidate to replace “Pray for Rain” Sonny.
This Arlen Specter for the Republicans (OK, so they dozens of them) would have at least three more amendments to the US Constitution. As well as ignoring a handful of others.
These creeps just don’t want to keep their filthy hands off of that sacred document. In any form possible…
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:44 am
Bosch at 8:37 hits the nail on the head.
danjonglee
May 26th, 2009
8:45 am
I wish we had the same passion for the 1st and 2nd amendments…
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
8:48 am
The I guess the Death Penalty is unconstituional also??
Read the Constitution, stunt dummy-
without due process of law.
Copyleft
May 26th, 2009
8:48 am
Proposed legislation that’s never intended to go anywhere is S.O.P. for members of Congress. It’s a publicity stunt to get attention, as Jay notes, in a crowded field of candidates.
If this were a seriously proposed bill there would be reason for concern, since it obviously violates the Constitution. But I’m sure even Deal himself doesn’t take this seriously–he just wants some attention from the bigots that make up his constituency.
Normal
May 26th, 2009
8:49 am
Whine,
1. Tell the readers where you got that “Quote” and why you took it out
of context.
2. Are you trying to say you are pro life? That is one thing I refuse to believe from reading your “comments”. You are too full of
hate to to be anything near pro life. I really don’t believe you
understand the term.
To be pro life, you have to assume a responsibility for the life you
are trying to save, so that it won’t be an unwanted child from an
uncaring family and given no chance to succeed and become a burden on
society, or on the prison system. In other words, you will need to
ensure that that life is well cared for, loved, educated and given every
chance to succeed as if it were your child. That means foster homes,
health care, educational programs and all of the other stuff you call
socialistic. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility,
or let your government do it for you, then you are not pro life, you
are just pro fetus. Just another rationalization to trick yourself
into thinking you are a moral stalwart.
And one other thing, you seem to prefer violence to rational, open
talks with our enemies, so you can’t be pro life. War is definitely
not pro life.
This is why I know what I’m talking about.
Thirteen years ago, I prevented my teenage daughter from getting an
abortion, against her and her mothers wishes. Did it for all the
“right” reasons too. My daughter moved away and I lost contact with
them, I knew where they were but it was just too hard to get there. Sure, I sent money every birthday, but I didn’t write or make contact
in other than the most occasonal and very brief phone calls. I said all
the right things, but I never backed them up with actions. I knew there
was trouble in the family but did nothing. I should have taken
responsibility for the boy, because it was me who wanted to save him.
When I knew he was unloved, uncared for, I should have brought him
home. But no, I did my part, I saved his life. And for what? He is
now 13 years old and will be tried as an adult for a felony. Where
is the warm fuzzy in that, my friend? What was the point?
I know you are smart, so act it.
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:51 am
Deal understands that what he is saying plays well to voters before elections. Once elected, he’ll never again utter a word about such proposals or anything about immigration reform.
It’s not Republican or Democrat, it’s simply a fact of economics – whether it’s the economics of running a household or the economics of running a business – that cheap labor will win the day.
You can bet that more than a few of Deal’s financial backers are relying on immigrants – legal or otherwise – to clean their houses, watch their kids or work in their businesses.
S GA dem
May 26th, 2009
8:52 am
Just another example of a “conservative” being anything but. How did this crazy group of people hijack the word ‘conservative’?? Radical, that’s way more accurate.
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:54 am
Normal,
that may be too much logic for your intended target to comprehend. If the preacher or Rush don’t tell them what to think, it isn’t going to get thought.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
8:54 am
Wow.
“To be pro life, you have to assume a responsibility for the life you
are trying to save, so that it won’t be an unwanted child from an
uncaring family and given no chance to succeed and become a burden on
society, or on the prison system. In other words, you will need to
ensure that that life is well cared for, loved, educated and given every
chance to succeed as if it were your child. That means foster homes,
health care, educational programs and all of the other stuff you call
socialistic. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility,
or let your government do it for you, then you are not pro life, you
are just pro fetus. Just another rationalization to trick yourself
into thinking you are a moral stalwart”
I’m going to copy and paste that into a Word Document and read it everytime I hear someone yelling about “murderin’ babies.”
Thanks for sharing that Normal.
jt
May 26th, 2009
8:55 am
danjonglee
May 26th, 2009
8:45 am
I wish we had the same passion for the 1st and 2nd amendments…
WE do. That is why there is a growing independant movement. The R & D party is NOT growing.
If only we can get a few EX POST FACTO convictions.
George American
May 26th, 2009
8:59 am
Deal has a great idea!
Keep America for Americans. What part of “illegal alien” don’t you understand?
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
9:00 am
George American,
“Keep America for Americans”
The only way any of us can say that is if you are 100% Native American. Are you?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:00 am
Sonia Sotomayor…..at 10:15
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:02 am
Bosch
One of the brighter righties here pointed out to me that even “native”
Americans came over from Asia across the ancient land bridge…..
George American
May 26th, 2009
9:06 am
I am 100% American by any measure of American.
Shawny
May 26th, 2009
9:08 am
If we would enforce the immigration LAWS, then there would be no hub-bub. But we allow a free flow of traffic across the borders including van loads of illegals. Enforce all laws.
Northern Songs Ltd
May 26th, 2009
9:09 am
Andy: Last I checked, the Supreme Court was the final piece of the “due process of law” puzzle, and I believe they have spoken. Oh and read “Normal’s” post again — awesome!!
Doggone/GA
May 26th, 2009
9:11 am
“Andy: Last I checked, the Supreme Court was the final piece of the “due process of law” puzzle, and I believe they have spoken.”
Cue “activist judges” rant
ty webb
May 26th, 2009
9:11 am
Sorry to sound heartless, but I believe Normal’s post was ridiculous. So If someone is against aborting an innocent life, they should be held responsible for all the subsequent poor choices that life, His/her mother, or his/her grandmother makes. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. While it’s a tragic story, the “Pro life” crowd is not responsible for the many bad choices of the child, and his family. And this is coming from someone who is not “anti abortion”.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 26th, 2009
9:19 am
Jay, are illegals “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? There might be something there to get rid of all these so called anchor child citizens!
Red
May 26th, 2009
9:20 am
Why is Reich wing populism always so filled with hate and exclusion? Of course it will never get traction, but this is how a GOP gubernatorial candidate gets noticed?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:24 am
Is it ok to terminate the pregnancy when it is an “anchor” blastocyst?
Mort Merkel
May 26th, 2009
9:25 am
Wow, you saw through Deal’s smokescreen? The sad part is that there are so many who don’t, or willfully won’t.
Adittohead
May 26th, 2009
9:28 am
The main goal of Obama appointing a far-left Supreme Court judge is to reWrite the U.S. Constitution to satisfy the kooks on the Left…To the liberals, the Constitution is a living document. It means what they say it means.
fearless fosdick
May 26th, 2009
9:33 am
I would like to point out that several weeks ago I was the only one on THIS BLOG who predicted
Sonia Sotomayor as the supreme court nominee…Am I good? or what……………
RW-(the original)
May 26th, 2009
9:34 am
As usual when Jay B says something is crystal clear it’s a good idea to dig a little deeper.
Here’s some interesting reading on the subject of the citizenship clause.
If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers). Instead, there were classes of persons no one desired to make citizens, and the United States had no intention of creating conflicting double allegiances as found under English common law.
Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.
Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.
jt
May 26th, 2009
9:35 am
Normal- you posted-”
And for what? He is now 13 years old and will be tried as an adult for a felony. Whereis the warm fuzzy in that, my friend? What was the point?
That is creepy reasoning. YOU might think this kid’s life is pointless, but HE would probably disagree.
ty webb
May 26th, 2009
9:35 am
My comment must have gotten held up in the filter, so please excuse the double post if the original is posted. I hate to sound heartless, but I found Normal’s post ridiculous. The “Pro Life” crowd should never be held responsible for subsequent poor choices that that life, his/her parents, or his/her grandparents make. So it’s better to go ahead and kill the baby/fetus because he/she/it or their parents might make mistakes in the future? Isn’t it about giving the Life opportunity? Sorry I don’t buy it, and I am not “anti abortion”.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:36 am
and so it begins…..a far left Supreme Court Judge….appointed by
Republican President George H. W. Bush…..
LISTEN DITTO HEAD<, please use all 3 of the currently available GOP talking points attacking Judge Sotomayor.
When we wipe the floor with your silliness, we don’t want to waste time,
so let’s do all three at one time.
FROM THINK PROGRESS
Last week, the well-respected SCOTUS Blog undermined the historic nature of a Sotomayor nomination and warned Republicans that it will be “hopeless” to try to block her nomination. Politically, such attacks risk “exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally.” A look at some of the likely conservative claims:
Opponents’ first claim — likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. … The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn’t the match of the other Justices. [...]
The second claim — and this one will be front and center — will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and “judicial activist.” … There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter. [...]
The third claim – related to the second – will be that Judge Sotomayor is unprincipled or dismissive of positions with which she disagrees. … There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.
whole thing here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor/
jt
May 26th, 2009
9:39 am
Also, during the depression of the 20’s, our southwestern border states rounded up Mexican laborors, and their naturalized families, and deported them. Citizenship was denied for Mexican kids born in the US.
I don’t know how they got around it but I presume that there is legal precedent.
George American
May 26th, 2009
9:51 am
Bosch,
You just spew the liberal party line about america. The fact is that America, the nation, didn’t even exist before 1776. And referring to the land mass that is now America pre-1776 must consider that the nation, America really didn’t even exist.
Taxpayer
May 26th, 2009
9:54 am
Precisely what has Deal or any of the other 20 percenters done in the past regarding illegal immigrants. Have they passed laws and provided funding to force employers in the US to only hire people with valid Social Security numbers. Are they forcing people who hire illegal immigrants to withhold taxes from their pay. Twenty percenters are such Pathetic Panderers. They’ll even hike their leg on their own.
getalife
May 26th, 2009
9:59 am
Sotomayor is the smartest pick politically.
Forcing the gop to go against the women and Latino vote.
Normal
May 26th, 2009
10:02 am
jt,
You seem to miss the point here. I love that kid and always will,as I will always celebrate his living, but I know his life would have been
better if I had accepted my responsibility. And for the record, the last time I talked to him, he told me he wished he had never been born
and blamed me. That was the “warm fuzzy” I was referring to.
It seems to me that you should spend less time blogging and spend
more time getting a “Milk of Human Kindness” transfusion.
RW-(the original)
May 26th, 2009
10:04 am
Yesterday was a solemn day to honor our fallen war heroes. Yesterday North Korea performed another nuclear weapons test. How did our President spend his afternoon? Golfing.
I can only imagine the outrage if that President was named Bush,
clyde
May 26th, 2009
10:11 am
My ancestors came here from Scotland before the Revolutionary war.As a result,they were not born here.I guess I must be an illegal alien according to Deal.
On the abortion issue, I can promise that I won’t have one and let it go at that.That’s my contribution to the issue.
Obama’s Supreme Court pick is no surprise.She had to be a qualified Hispanic woman.
Peadawg
May 26th, 2009
10:14 am
I agree with this. There are waaaaay too many illegals getting benefits that they SHOULD NOT get. I actually have to work for these benefits, while they mooch off the gov’t. There’s too many loopholes and hopefully this one will get closed.
Midori
May 26th, 2009
10:16 am
Sotomyer is on now.
Handsome woman. I must look up some of her rulings.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
10:16 am
Actually, constutition didnt ban abortion (which was rather common in their day, they just used different methods), because they never anticipated that an insane group of people would attempt to interfere with anyones private life. Abortion was known about, even the American Indians performed them. They started making them illegal, for rather different reasons than the religious right wants to. Not because of any concern for the unborn, who had no legal rights, but because the procedures were rather primative, dangerous and unsterile and they risked the health of the woman. Of course, by the mid 20th century, modern and more sterile medical techniques removed the need for such protections so abortion was made legal again. But from the day the Pilgrims stepped onto Plymouth Rock to about a few years after the civil war, abortion was totally legal, rather common. Interfering in a personal decision would have been considered…tyrannically dictatorial by the founding fathers and by most Americans up until the religious right came along. From the BEN FRANKLIN INSTITUTE.:
July 27th, 2007
Women have turned to abortion to end unwanted pregnancies throughout the ages. In the U.S., induced abortion was common among Native Americans, and it was legal from colonial times to the middle of the 19th century. But unclean, primitive medical practices made it very dangerous. To protect women’s lives, laws against abortion began to be passed during the mid-1800s. But by the middle of the 20th century, cleaner, more advanced medical procedures made safe abortion possible. All U.S. laws against abortion were overturned in 1973 by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Today, abortion is legal nationwide and is one of the safest of all available medical procedures.
http://abortioncase.blogs.bftf.org/
If you note, neither abortion NOR the right to life of the unborn is mentioned in the constitution. Those who were not yet born, and those who were dead were not considered to have rights at all. This was in fact, the basis for the founding fathers opposition to inheritance. They beleived that only a person who EARNED the money had a right to it, and he didnt have the right to pass it on to whoever he wanted. They beleived in a set of government defined rules of inheritance, and if no relative closer than a wife or child existed, the money went back to the government, the agency that made earning that money possible
Abortion laws, are a rather STRANGE thing for right wingers to insist on, largely because of the right wing assertions against judicial activism and their support of strict constructionism in the constitution. Since there is no mention of the rights of the unborn, or of abortion in the constitution, those who create such laws are basically engaging is a sort of constitutional activism, creating what was not intended by the founders.
RW-(the original)
May 26th, 2009
10:16 am
Somebody is messing with Obama’s teleprompter. He just read to us that a Supreme court justice has to interpret words put to paper over 20 centuries ago.
Peadawg
May 26th, 2009
10:16 am
And on the abortion issue…
I still think it is murder. You are depriving someone else the right to life. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…women who have abortions are no better than the woman who put her kid in an oven (that happened a few months ago I think).
eagle scout
May 26th, 2009
10:17 am
RW .. And where was Obama supposed to be? In an undisclosed hidey hole or perhaps monitoring this test from a bunker at the Korean demilitarized zone. Get a grip, your hatred of Obama is beginning to preclude any common sense that you may have left!
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
10:18 am
Hearing DimBulb, Gwinnetian talking about comprehension cracks me up, you liberals are too funny.
Andy: Last I checked, the Supreme Court was the final piece of the “due process of law” puzzle, and I believe they have spoken
So what criminal statute have the unborn broken?
duh
RW-(the original)
May 26th, 2009
10:30 am
eagle scout,
I’m pointing out the hypocrisy in our “news” coverage. Next time you feel the need to lash out at least make an attempt to understand the message please.
Midori,
Start with Ricci V. DeStefano
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
10:32 am
call for constitutional re-write!
how’s this….
We the UnBorn People…..
Taxpayer
May 26th, 2009
10:40 am
So, why are the 20 percenters not going after the big drug companies that make the birth control pills, morning after pills, etc. Why do we never hear the 20 percenters going after that which makes chemical abortions possible. And, what about condoms and other forms of birth prevention. The 20 percenters just cannot present a consistent argument on any topic and especially not on one such as abortion. They don’t even understand that ‘conception’ does not guarantee a viable life and they certainly do not understand that responsibility for that viable life continues after birth. You cannot just whack the newborn on the buttocks and throw it out on the street, crying and whining incessantly. For one thing, we just cannot tolerate that many Andys in this world.
So Many Haters
May 26th, 2009
10:52 am
“during the depression of the 20’s, our southwestern border states rounded up Mexican laborors, and their naturalized families, and deported them … I don’t know how they got around it but I presume that there is legal precedent.”
Yes and lynching was very popular in the South back then, too.
Doesn’t mean it was legal or right.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
10:55 am
“I still think it is murder. You are depriving someone else the right to life. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…women who have abortions are no better than the woman who put her kid in an oven (that happened a few months ago I think).”
Your thoughts and beliefs are irrelevant. The only positions that is legally acceptable is what can be legally PROVEN. Which is why Roe v. Wade changes the balance at the point of VIABILITY which is the ONLY thing that can be proven as a fact in the courts. Religious beliefs are unacceptable, as our government prohibits the enforcing of one persons religious beliefs onto another who does not hold those beliefs through legislation. In all cases, the mothers life must be taken into account, because without medical assistance, she has NO means of protecting herself from an unborn that is trying to kill her, not even accidentally in some cases, but purposefully. In almost all cases, such a pregnancy will not come to term. Without modern medicine, a full 70 percent of pregnancies will “self terminate” because of some problem with the unborn.
Peadawg
May 26th, 2009
11:01 am
N.J.,
Whether or not I think it is murder has NOTHING to do w/ my religious beliefs. Murder is murder. Just because you don’t agree w/ my thoughts doesn’t make them irrelevant you jerk. I may not agree w/ someone on here, but calling them irrelevant is a little low.
Jake
May 26th, 2009
11:08 am
The 14th Amendment was intended to deal with former slaves, it never anticipated the swarms of millions of illegals. Deal has a good idea, but Jay’s right it would take a Constitutional Amendment or at least a repeal of the 14th.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
11:12 am
Prove it is murder. In a court of law, preponderance of evidence is necessary. The preponderence of evidence is also that allowing the mother to die during pregnancy because of medical problems is more of a provable murder than an abortion is.
The religious right or anyone on the pro life side is based on two false assertions. The first is that the unborn child is innocent when in fact, its in a better environment to harm its mother without external assistance than the mother is able to protect herself against the unborn child. The second false assertion is that pregnancy is always safe and natural and without serious risk. Malignant melanoma is also natural, but its neither safe or without serious risk.
Until the advent of legal abortion, the rate of maternal death from various pregnancy related conditions was quite high, depending on how wealthy you were. If you had money, you had a better chance of living through a risky pregnancy than not.
Law allows a person to protect themselves, even from an accidental attempt on their own life and health. If you kill someone in an event where they are attempting to harm you, even if they are trying to save their own life, you are held harmless by law. The unborn child is neither innocent, nor incapable or killing, even if it is “accidental”
The mother has every right to protect her own life and health, and the right to lifers have to create these two basically false arguments to bolster their assertions that the mother should have no rights.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 26th, 2009
11:16 am
Mara, she will get to hear the case from the Supreme bench if she’s approved!
I was Army, that is very real, reverse discrimination is alive and well in our Armed Forces! Damn her for not ruling right in this case! With Barry as our CiC we have no discrimination in this country! Stop these travesties of justice.
williebkind
May 26th, 2009
11:16 am
Mrs G. You are hungup on the term unborn. It is still human flesh and life. It is so sad so called intelligent people will kill so recklessly!
Well there is nothing like an good old affirmative action supreme court justice. We had to have a hispanic to show our love for illegal hispanics(and get their illegal votes)! We did it. What is next? You guessed it probably–we have to have an open homosexual supreme court justice. It is the progessive liberal way!
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
11:26 am
The people who decided on Roe made the correct decision. The religious right basically removes ALL rights from the mother to take several decisions. The first is to risk her own life for the unborn. The fact is that ALL pregnancies contain some degree of risk to the mother. The right to choose is the right to accept that risk or not. in Roe, the balance of rights changes from trimester to trimester, but in all cases, the mothers health must always be placed in the mix. Even mental health because early on, what appears to be mere depression, is frequently an early sign of very dangerous conditions that are causing small amounts of brain or neurological damage to the mother, that will get progressively worse as the pregnancy goes on. Eclampsia and pre-eclampsia are the two better known conditions, however since in order to bring a child to term, the mothers immune system must be altered, there is no real way of knowing what is causing the mental aspects during pregnancy. In the 1950’s a lot of women died during pregnancy OR had their health permanently compromised by various complications that occur to varying degrees in all pregnancies. Right to choose is just that. The right to choose to take this risk, or the right to no choose it. The right to lifers as usual consider only ONE life, the unborn, and the mothers life is simply a non consideration to them.
Peadawg
May 26th, 2009
11:32 am
If life begin at conception, which is a huge debate because it hasn’t been proven either way(if it has, send me a credible link), then it is murder. A doctor killing another human being.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
11:40 am
The original constitution purposefully gave all people LIVING in the United States citizenship OF the United States, except in a single case, becoming president of the United States. For a good reason. A large number of people living IN America were not born here. Including a good number of the founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton and Tom Paine. The RIGHT to citizenship was not removed from the constitution, OR even by Amendment, but by mere legislation, less than 100 years ago, basically on racist grounds (white people were okay, but when immigrants with yellow skin started coming in great numbers…it was a no no)Technically there is no such thing, constitutionally, as an ILLEGAL immigrant. We have legal quotas by law, but no law dealing with illegal immigration really. But constitutionally if you are born here, you are a citizen, and there are even acceptions to that originally
The legal definition of “naturalization” was defined very early on, as was the right to citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of the status of his parents:
Clause 4. The Congress shall have Power *** To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.
The courts have ruled that in order to be eligible for naturalization one must be BORN outside of the United States. Many cases have asserted the right of anyone born on American territory to American citizenship
To put it simply birthright citizenship:
Birthright citizenship in the United States of America follows from a hybrid rule of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Under the American system, any person born within the United States (including the overseas territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship, [1] as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
This is a basic law. If you are born in the United States or any territory thereof, you are an American citizen, regardless of the state of your parents.
Dave R
May 26th, 2009
11:45 am
The next original thought out of Nathan Deal’s head will be his first original thought (kind of like reading Taxpayer’s or NJ’s posts, but with a Congressional flavor).
As Jay (unusually rightly for him) pointed out, this is a Constitutional issue, which should be handled with an amendment change, not through legislation. However, the smokescreen of liberalism has been set off by Jay as well. Don’t talk about the REAL issue, which is whether “anchor babies” should be allowed or be a good thing; just kill the messenger as good liberals do and vilify a potential candidate for governor before his campaign really begins.
Liberals (and many conservatives) don’t want to debate actual subjects. They just live to demonize their political opponents. It is like reading any of AMVet’s posts. That is why independents are growing in record numbers.
Now, that being said, I think that there are two possible scenarios that can play out here. First, leave it the way it is, but just change any law (if one actually exists) that allows the parents of anchor babies to stay in the U.S. because their child is now a citizen. In most cases, practically speaking, your rights as a citizen legally begin once you become an adult. Before that, you are really accorded them through your parents. But I know of no right to live in this country due to citizenship, and I do know that children cannot make decisions for themselves until coming of legal age. So maybe Deal just has to submit a bill that would require the parents of anchor babies to be deported if found guilty of illegally being in the U.S., and their child will have to suffer the consequences of their parent’s actions – which they’d have to do anyway through all choices of their parents – good or bad.
The second thing would be to simply sponsor a repeal or modification to the amendment in question. Deal SHOULD have done this in the first place, rather than try to change it through legislation that is un-Constitutional.
But someone else above also pointed out the irony of calling an amendment into question that suits you lib’s idea of Constitutionality, such as this, but pointed out that you sure don’t favor the second amendment very much. Our energy policy would be bereft if we had to power this country by liberal’s thoughts on Constitutionality.
Paul
May 26th, 2009
11:52 am
Wow. All those posts and the only one I saw who seriously addressed Jay’s points (other than through emotion or ‘I think THIS should be Truth) was RW-(the original).
Jay, I suppose time constraints are a factor, but to write “you cannot seriously argue about its language… There is no equivocation, no qualification. Under that provision, even children born in this country to illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens, period. If that bothers you, if you want to change that reality, you have to change the Constitution, which contains provisions by which it can be amended.”
Well, I’ll disagree. It’s my understanding Section 1 has never been litigated before the Court in this regards. It was, I understand, brought in to settle citizenship rights following the civil war. There was a case in the 19th century concerning birthright of immigrants but the Court did not address those here legally vs illegally (the “subject to the jurisdiction) part. There is plenty of contemporary material indicating the intent of those sponsoring the legislation was that the ’subject to’ followed accepted meanings – pretty much, if you are subject to laws of a foreign power, you are not automatically subject solely to the laws of the US. We can prosecute illegal acts; foreign countries can intervene.
I’m pretty amazed since this hoopla has been going on for years this hasn’t been litigated. Then again, look how long it took a Second Amendment case to hit the court.
But as far as “no equivocation, no qualification” – nope. One can be assured of that generally only when qualifiers with room for interpretation, such as “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are omitted.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
11:55 am
Basically jus soli is just that. The common pricipal going back to Roman times, that if you are born on the soil of a country (soli) you are a citizen of that soil. A frequent exception to this is known a “lex soli” meaning that a child born to a parent in another nation while his parent is in the diplomatic service of his nation is a birthright citizen. The United States accepts jus soli, lex soli and jus sanguinis (blood right…the child of American citizens is an American citizen, wherever they are born)
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
12:01 pm
Basically because of basic law, exclusion of any one born on American soil would require a constitutional change that accept only jus sanguinis only, or varies jus soli to a degree that requires one parent to be a citizen, either naturalized or by birth. But the basis for citizenship in the U.S. was always assumed to be jus soli, because of the fact that when this nation was founded, a lot of people were British citizens by birth.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
12:07 pm
Hi ya Paul!
Too bad this thread died out – I like this topic better – more controversial. That other thread about Sotomayer is boring. Surprise! The GOP hates her, the Dems love her.
If I could type a snoring sound I would.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
12:11 pm
Actually the issue of “anchor babies” has also been dealt with and found in favor of the anchor babies.
In 1924 another clarification of citizenship was made, to extend, not limit citizenship:
The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USC S1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In fact this legislation extends to illegal aliens, because at the time the child is born, they were in fact, in the jusisdiction and subject to the laws of the United States.
The next problem that crops up is the immediate giving of residency to the people of lets say, Cuba, as soon as they set foot on American soil as political exiles. Subjecting one group to limited conditions and another to total restriction would create an entirely different batch of problems.
In the past all legislation which remained in place has basically been to redefine what constitutes the “United States” to clarify this as the nation got larger, rather than to restrict citizenship from one group of people born here, from another who is born here.
Paul
May 26th, 2009
12:19 pm
Hi Bosch!
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I was sleeping. My wife heard me snoring and told me to get back to work.
LA weather was niiiiiice…..
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
12:23 pm
Its been brought in a number of times. In the late 19th Century, in the early 20th, in the 1950’s and again in the 1960’s/
Conservatives can flip flop from strict constructionist to judicial activist at the drop of a hat when it comes to stuff like this.
Basically we know the intent of the founders. Because many of them were NOT born in the United States, they extended citizenship in a number of ways, by birth on American soil, by being born of American parentage off of American soil and so on. They had the broadest view of citizenship, rather than a narrow one.
This is currently law, based on constitutional desscriptions as well as clarification as the nation expanded:
Citizenship
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. – XIV Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Citizenship is one of the most coveted gifts that the U.S. government can bestow, and the most important immigration benefit that USCIS can grant. Most people become U.S. citizens in one of two ways:
By birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents, or
By Naturalization.
In addition, in 2000, Congress passed the Child Citizenship Act (CCA), which allows any child under the age of 18 who is adopted by a U.S. citizen and immigrates to the United States to acquire immediate citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/
Paul
May 26th, 2009
12:25 pm
Bosch
I looked through the old threads from when I was gone. I was kinda hoping Jay would’ve had one after Spkr Pelosi’s news conference the other day – her weekly Speaker’s Address – where she shut down the questioner with the ‘what did you know about torture and when did you know it’ question with her “I’ve answered that, won’t answer any more and am looking forrrrrrward!’ response.
You know, a thread about stonewalling, secrecy, lying, diversion, that sort of thing? Seems it’s a topic that shouldn’t apply just to the Bush years.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
12:43 pm
Wasn’t Pelosi around during the Bush years? Maybe she didn’t get the memo that she’s supposed to be transparent now! Hahahaha!!!!
I’m hitting the beach Thursday – can’t wait!
Dave R
May 26th, 2009
12:46 pm
NJ, you don’t KNOW the intent of the Founders. You strain mightily to twist their words to try to find intent, but you don’t know their intent.
First, get out of the “forming a new nation” argument. That instance no longer applies here. We are established now and don’t need to worry about former British subjects becoming citizens.
Next, you ignore my point about the parents being responsible for the children. There is no guarantee that a citizen of the U.S. must be allowed to live in the U.S. as far as I know. Therefore, if they are not of legal age and cannot speak for themselves, they must suffer the consequences of their parent’s actions. In essence, they go back to whatever country of origin their parents have, and can come back legally when they come of age if they so choose and exercise all the rights of citizenship then.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
12:48 pm
“NJ, you don’t KNOW the intent of the Founders. You strain mightily to twist their words to try to find intent, but you don’t know their intent”
Pot meet kettle – if ever there was a case.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
12:49 pm
Paul,
I answered you on the other thread – I dont’ want to bring “that topic” back up here – Midori will yell at you.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 26th, 2009
12:51 pm
So DC is not a state, so no one born there is a citizen? Damn!
Dave R
May 26th, 2009
12:58 pm
Sorry, Bosch, but some of us actually READ the words of those Founding Fathers, as opposed to trying to INTERPRET them to our world-view, as NJ and some other libs (OK all other libs) try to do.
Nice try. Come back when you can provide something interesting to write.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
1:11 pm
Sorry Dave, but you don’t KNOW any more than NJ does. Both of what you post is your interpretation.
Dave R
May 26th, 2009
1:34 pm
Sorry, Bosch, but what they wrote is largely not interpretive. They were very simple concepts that have been twisted by arguing MEANING or INTENT, when there was no meaning or intent except that people should be free to succeed or make mistakes on their own without government intervention.
Any other “interpretation” is liberal drivel, and not based in FACT nor Founding Father’s writings.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
3:25 pm
Dave R.,
“They were very simple concepts that have been twisted by arguing MEANING or INTENT”
Um, kind of like what you do?
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
3:28 pm
Wrong. The founders spoke quite largely on rights and wealth only belonging to the living. By their definitions of their time, this excluded the unborn as well as the dead:
Jefferson, for instance:
Certainly several of the “founding fathers” thought a great deal about the problem of inherited wealth, and about how taxation might be used to reduce social inequality. In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Thomas Jefferson also famously wondered whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.”
A tax on estate receipts was instituted by Congress in 1797, during the presidency of John Adams, to pay for a build-up of the US navy.
That said, the founders strongly supported property rights, and preferred the idea of dispersing inherited wealth through the abolition of the laws of primogeniture (a system of inheritance where all the property is handed down to the first born male) rather than through taxation.
As Jefferson also said, “To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
The position above being that the dead do not have the right to pass on their wealth, and the unborn do not have any rights so to speak to inherit it.
With regard to ideas like abortion, the founders left all such determinations to an individuals personal morality, not to the state:
Thomas Jefferson once said, “All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.” (Landis 130) Americans’ rights were formed because of the relationship between church and state, but an individual’s morals decide what is considered right or wrong.
https://www.msu.edu/~barzleah/WRA135/WorksCited1.html
Prior to the BUSH legislation with regard to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban (a procedure which was invented by political activists, and not by the medical profession) The entire national law and Constitution left it to a persons own moral determination to beleive whether a fetus was a human being or not. That is, even if a person claims to not be religious, their personal belief in this matter has no factual basis, but is in one way or another, a doctrine f faith or personal belief and cannot be subtantively proven one way or the other.
The founders considered that rights as a citizen, started at birth, ended at death, and no ideology based on individual faith or belief should be allowed to intrude on another persons individual faith or belief. We absolutely know their opinion on this issue, as abortion was VERY common in their time and they chose not to address the issue at all.
In fact while one thinks of the “midwife” as someone who only delivers a child, the fact was that midwives wer also people who performed abortions, particularly in cases when the health of the mother was threatened.
And the pro life whackos still avoid this single point. What of the unborn child who does harm to his mother or kills her while in the womb.
As usual, the right to lifers are using a misleading name for themselves. The mothers life isnt worth a damn by their interpretations.
They are not pro life,merely anti abortion. If the mothers life is not part of the equation, they are not pro life.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
3:37 pm
The one thing we know about the founders. First they wanted all religious considerations to be kept out of the law. You beleive the unborn has a right to life, I dont. Unless there is absolute proof that before quickening, this is so, you do not get to assert, what is basically a belief based on some form of faith and not fact, your belief does not get to trump mine, nor even deny me the right to that belief legally.
The evidence of their lack of belief in any of the known religions is in their own words:
Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason: “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. . . . Each of those churches accuse the other of disbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
John Adams, our second president, saw among the clergy the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces” and wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter dated April 17, 1817, “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.”
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said in a letter written Jan. 17, 1825: “I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” Furthermore, he referred to the Revelation of St. John as “the ravings of a maniac.”
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, wrote in a letter dated April 1, 1774, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
That is, they were rationalists and without a rational reason for suggesting that the unborn are entitled to a right to life, but their mother can be deprived of it by those who oppose abortion, your argument would not hold up.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
3:40 pm
Arguably, the founders also strongly opposed invasions of personal privacy and amendments to the constitution strenthened that. They crates an implied right to privacy in the 1st, 3rd and 4th Amendments and the 14th amendment later asserted that the government could in no way, shape or form violate privacy in any area of life.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
3:49 pm
Among the early founding fathers, Witherspoon most clearly defines the natural rights human are BORN with. That is the rights are gained at birth, not before:
Witherspoon’s list of man’s perfect rights in the civil state after the natural state is left behind, which are guaranteed full protection under the social contract, is as follows:
1) a right to life;
a right to character. 3
2) a right to employ his faculties and industry for his own use;
3) a right to things common and necessary, as air, water, earth;
4) a right to personal liberty;
5) a power over his own life;
6) a right to private judgment in matters of opinion;
7) a right to associate with any person or persons;
Witherspoon lists the natural rights which are both essential and universal to each person and must be protected by the social contract under the constitution and laws of the new society. They are listed as such:
a) to act for his own protection
b) to defend himself
c) and not be dominated by another.
Not this alone. John Witherspoon was the teacher of many of the founders. Of the 25 college graduates at the Continental Congress, 25 went to the college he served as president at, and six had his signature on their diplomas.
At the time that Witherspoon was teaching and president at Princeton, he noted, though he didnt much like, the principal which existed in his day, that a parent had the RIGHT to take the life of their own child.
Again the one term that the founders never defined was “what is a person”
However from their own writings, we know for a fact, they asserted that the dead didnt have the rights of the living, and that rights were obtained when one was born, and not before.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
4:13 pm
Along with this, those who heard the case for Roe v Wade hunted high and low, throughout history for ANY legal event in which ‘pre quickening” abortion was made illegal. They addressed “common law” as far back as they could as well as “cannon law” or church law and the result was:
3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before “quickening” — the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 — was not an indictable offense.
21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became “formed” or recognizably human, or in terms of when a “person” came into being, that is, infused with a “soul” or “animated.” A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was “mediate animation.”
Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation.
There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas’ definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.
http://www.topix.com/forum/colleges/baylor-college-of-medicine/TQLKLST17KFJ0QELV/p15
From which point the courts decided to make abortion in the first 3 months 100 percent legal, as common law allowed for going back until the earliest times in European history.
next for each succeeding trimester, the conditions changed, but asserting that the mothers rights to self defense, something which has also been asserted as a basic right of common law, that is the right to protect ones own health and well being, is a basic human right which the courts cannot infringe upon.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
4:16 pm
The rest of the history of law with regard to abortion either held the abortion of a quickened fetus as at worse, a misdeameanor and in most cases no crime at all:
Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman “quick with child” is “a great misprision, and no murder.” 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), “modern law” took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. 26 This is of some importance because while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law, 27 others followed Coke in stating that abortion of a quick fetus was a “misprision,” a term they translated to mean “misdemeanor.” 28 That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum (due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
4:17 pm
To put it simply, back to the 13th century, and during the time of the founders, abortion was never considered a criminal act. Many of the founders were in fact, lawyers familiar with the common law of their own day.
catlady
May 26th, 2009
5:19 pm
I am pretty far to the left, BUT..we have laws against theft. Little is more precious than American citizenship. People who commit a crime (illegal entry) cannot profit by their crime. Getting American citizenship is certainly a benefit, as well as any other perqs illegal immigrants get.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
6:06 pm
People commit crimes, and profit from them all the time. There are simply crimes that are classed as legitimate crimes, and those that are classed as illegitimate crimes. Most of the things that have caused the current economic crisis, were legitimate crimes before Reagan decriminalized them when he changed the tax codes and a number of other business regulations.
For example when Reagan fired air traffic controllers, he was violating the legal rights of labor to organize.
Techincally there is actually no such thing as an ILLEGAL immigrant. We dont actually have laws that deny people coming into this country. What we have is a quota system depending on the country of origin. Our immigration laws developed rather late in our nations history and they do not precisely make people who come in around the quota system “illegal” but rather, “unrecognized”. In fact our immigration laws have nothing to do with them being here, but in fact only assure that the person entering the country is not bringing a communicable disease, or has not been adjudicated of a crime in another country which would invalidate them entering the United States. Techically the term ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT is a misnomer. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. An immigrant is someone who enters the United States by following the set policies of the United States. The person who is here without following those policies is not an immigrant. However, they are violating policies and procedures, not laws.
Since the 1980’s however the law actually quite different:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was signed into law by President Reagan and included amnesty for aliens who could establish residence in the United States since January 1, 1982, employer sanctions aimed at removing the lure of employment, and a special exemption for aliens employed in agricultural work.
The Triennial Comprehensive Report on Immigration (USINS, 1999) showed that 2.7 million person gained lawful permanent residence as a direct result of IRCA.
Although the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90) that took effect in 1992, more than doubled the number of visas available to persons who qualified for employment-based immigration, it also attempted to begin removing aliens with aggravated felony convictions. This focus on removing criminal aliens continued with the addition of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that attempted to apply retroactivity to aggravated alien felons in the United States. In addition to adding Border Patrol agents (5000) and interior enforcement agents (300) over several years, the IIRIRA also expedited removals of certain excludable aliens applying for admission into the United States. Needless to say, the various amendments are under continuous judicial review and this tends to neutralize the intent of the laws. Interior Enforcement.
Techically once you are here, you are here. You are no longer actually illegal.This is another Republican invented term. Technically you can only deport, by law, felons.
If someone gets into the country without these inspections, they are not actually illegal. If they are caught they are released and given a date to go before an immigration judge to determine if they are felons or not. If they are not, they are allowed to stay, because the quota systems of the 1950’s and 1960’s were completely repealed later on.
Lee
May 26th, 2009
8:11 pm
Interesting how Jay Bookman can quote the Constitution when it serves his politically correct purpose, but thinks it is okay to pass laws to interfere with our Constitutional rights at other times.
Second Amendment anyone?
N.J.
May 26th, 2009
9:34 pm
No, the second amendment at best guarantees the right to own and bear arms, but does not state that the government cannot regulate this in some way, such as licensure, if said ownership creates some condition which violates the body of the constitution such as a failure to “promote the general welfare” the Amendments are just that, amendments to the consitution, that can either alter those additions if they have been found harmful or unnecessary, as in prohibition, The right to bear arms, was added to the constitution two years after the constitution was signed and ratified. The 2nd amendment, can be overridden by another amendment, just as the 19th Amendment was voided by the ratification of the 21st Amendment. If the terms of the second amendment cause enough social and national problems to the point that it is harmful to the general welfare, the government can completely remove that right, as it is not a right granted within the body of the constitution itself OR it can be redefined by legislation. The constitution guarantees the right to vote, and various rights to citizenship, but as the nation changed, legislation to redefine what the definition of the “United States” was.
For example it would be perfectly legal for Congress to prohibit the IMPORT of firearms under its power to regulate commerce, if it was determined that the importation or exportation of guns to and from the United States were not in the best interest of the general welfare. This does not abrogate the terms of the second amendment in any way, it simply changes the conditions of ownership to suit the times.
If all that is required is licensure and registration of the gun, this in no way prohibits the right to own and bear arms.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
8:46 am
Dave R gets spanked and runs away… N.J. presents an array of facts and logic to support the correct, liberal view… and a random wingnut posts an irrelevant lie about an unrelated topic (in this case, guns).
Another day on Bookman’s Blog!
King of All
May 27th, 2009
9:28 am
I wonder what he would propose for John McKain who was born outside the United States? Hhmmm!
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
5:22 pm
This is the typical conservative method, Copyleft. When they are confronted with fact, they simply run to another article or thread in a blog and start posting more of their schizphrenic ideation.
Some of my favorites. Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who had a heterosexual affair with Vince Foster. Bill Clinton was a totally incompetent president who was the liberal Darth Vader. Ronald Reagan passes massive tax cuts and massively increases government deficit spending and the Democrats are responible for not stopping him.
Republicans are capable of holding two diametrically opposed sets of beliefs in their heads simulataneously and assert both are correct. The classical definition of mental illness.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
5:27 pm
Oh yes, Nancy Pelosi is now responsible for the Bush torture policies.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
5:32 pm
And this is the most wonderful thing about conservatism and conservative parties. They always die and have to be replaced with a party that starts out to be more moderate and populist and rather quickly becomes a conservative dinosaur. A party incapable of evolving and changing with the times.
The conservatives of the 1820’s were replaced by the more radically populist, anti – slavery wing of their party, which became the Republican Party. Within 45 years of Lincoln, the anti corporation populist, becoming President the Republican party becomes the party of Wall Street and big business. for a brief time during the Depression, the Republicans revert to an isolationist, populism again, but within ten years are the party of big business and rampant militarism again. With each switch and reversion, they become deafer and deafer to the popular will. Which is why they are stone deaf to it now, and their party will die off to be replaced with another, less conservative and more populist party.
NannyGoat
May 28th, 2009
11:04 am
Jay strikes again. So, Jay…what are your thoughts about the 1970’s women lib movement attempting to change/amend the constitution or the repeal of the 18th amendment.
Jay is so offbase. He should be paying the AJC to have a place to spout his nonsensical babblings.