kapkomet Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 09:14 PM) All persons born or naturalized in the united states are citizens. Really...there are some vague things in the constitution...That's not one of them. What else does it say? Those words are there for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 If it was up to me the amendment would say something about one of the parents needing to be a US citizen and/or a lawful permanent resident for the child to be a US citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, That's there for a reason. And was written there for a reason. I know, only pay attention to the constitution that matters to you. I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 09:26 PM) That's there for a reason. And was written there for a reason. I know, only pay attention to the constitution that matters to you. I understand. When I read the second part I see "in the United States and subject to American laws" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:28 PM) When I read the second part I see "in the United States and subject to American laws" The clause is important because to me it technically limits the naturalization (aka, hop plane, spit the baby out, fly back to said country and now you have an American) process. You do not have jurisdiction or the rights of an American citizen just because you spit out a baby in the US. That's my problem with it, and my interpretation of that clause. The whole point of putting it there was because they wanted to ensure that slaves were covered - as they were NATURAL citizens, not because momma came and spit you out just to go back home somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:22 PM) If it was up to me the amendment would say something about one of the parents needing to be a US citizen and/or a lawful permanent resident for the child to be a US citizen. that's probably the best way to handle the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 (edited) lol more Obama job creating government spending. nice to know tens of millions in tax payer money is going towards this. http://www.informationweek.com/news/softwa...cleID=226500202 Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia. Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs. Edited August 6, 2010 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 09:22 PM) If it was up to me the amendment would say something about one of the parents needing to be a US citizen and/or a lawful permanent resident for the child to be a US citizen. Completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 6, 2010 Share Posted August 6, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:37 PM) The clause is important because to me it technically limits the naturalization (aka, hop plane, spit the baby out, fly back to said country and now you have an American) process. You do not have jurisdiction or the rights of an American citizen just because you spit out a baby in the US. That's my problem with it, and my interpretation of that clause. The whole point of putting it there was because they wanted to ensure that slaves were covered - as they were NATURAL citizens, not because momma came and spit you out just to go back home somewhere else. Here's how it works: Some senators agreed with your interpretation at the time. Others did not. The SCOTUS's interpretation is the one that matters, and this was settled in 1898. So, the clause does not limit naturalization like you would want it to. Your child does have citizenship just because you "spit out a baby in the US". Your interpretation of that clause is simply wrong based on long-standing precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 07:36 AM) Here's how it works: Some senators agreed with your interpretation at the time. Others did not. The SCOTUS's interpretation is the one that matters, and this was settled in 1898. So, the clause does not limit naturalization like you would want it to. Your child does have citizenship just because you "spit out a baby in the US". Your interpretation of that clause is simply wrong based on long-standing precedent. What case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 07:13 PM) What case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark It's wikipedia but it has a pretty good explanation of what the court found the meaning of that jurisdiction clause to mean. You can read the decisions themselves as well. If you want to get that literal about a phrase in an amendment, how do you reconcile the militia clause of the 2nd amendment? Or is this just more picksy-choosey States Right advocacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 I'm pretty consistent when it comes to "states rights advocacy", you have to admit that. I think it's a central tenet of the law system we have, whether you all do or not when you want to choose what's best for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 I thought about that this morning, and I have to apologize. I have no idea why I said that because this never was a states rights issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Small plane crash in Alaska, former Senator Stevens may have been on board. No confirmation of that yet, no word yet on survivors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 09:51 AM) Small plane crash in Alaska, former Senator Stevens may have been on board. No confirmation of that yet, no word yet on survivors. Former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe may also have been on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 10, 2010 Author Share Posted August 10, 2010 It appears that both were on board, although may have survived. 4 people aboard died, but identities have not been released. Hope both made it out alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 First report out of Alaska that He Gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 12:29 PM) First report out of Alaska that He Gone. You really couldn't have worded that any differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) You really couldn't have worded that any differently? i didnt mean any disrespect. Just feeling a little Soxie today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 On a side note: If he WAS still alive, wouldnt you think the family would have said something by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 02:08 PM) On a side note: If he WAS still alive, wouldnt you think the family would have said something by now? Not if they didn't know. Conditions haven't allowed rescue equipment into the area other than a couple of first responders, probably local people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 01:09 PM) Not if they didn't know. Conditions haven't allowed rescue equipment into the area other than a couple of first responders, probably local people. ahhh ok. I wasnt aware of that. Ok, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Never was a big fan... still tragic. RIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Never was a big fan... still tragic. RIP. a plane crash is a sucky way to die. (I dont fly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 CNN is reporting that rescue officials have confirmed that former Senator Stevens was killed in the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts