Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
She just doesn't understand the Constitution
Topic Started: Oct 30 2011, 12:17 PM (223 Views)
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/michele-bachmann-immigration-citizenship_n_1065981.html

Quote:
 
When the subject turned to immigration at another campaign stop that day, Bachmann suggested passing a law that would bar citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants. "We've got to end this anchor baby program," she said.

When asked during the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas if she supports repealing the 14th amendment, Bachmann responded that the issue doesn't have to be dealt with constitutionally, but can be addressed with legislation. "There are a lot of Americans that would like us to deal with this issue of anchor babies legislatively," she said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

As we all know when you become president the constitution has no meaning.

She is starting to look presidential.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Since you know the Constitution yourself, I'm sure you understand that the citizenship clause within the 14th gives pretty broad definitions, and while SCOTUS has routinely upheld the interpretation that you're referring to, it isn't clear in the wording what the intent is, with regard to people born in the U.S. to non-citizens.

It seems that she understands the Constitution, but might not understand how the legal system works with regards to the Constitution, and what is required to ratify it.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I should think it would be implicit the child be born to parents here legally.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
"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."

So is someone here illegally said to "reside" in any state? Hardly. "Residence" itself is a legal category that is defined in statutory law.

And "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is well attested to the intent in the mind of the framers of the amendment: a good version of the argument is laid out here:

Quote:
 
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

An illegal alien has no obvious claim to citizenship under the 14th amendment, so I am not sure why it would require anything but a simple law to clarify that further.

I suspect Ms Bachman knows a lot more about the law and the Constitution than Ax does.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 12:25 PM
It seems that she understands the Constitution, but might not understand how the legal system works with regards to the Constitution, and what is required to ratify it.
She doesn't get the part about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, thinking that something in the Constitution can be overridden by mere "legislation" (as opposed to a Constitutional amendment, the ratification of which is also prescribed by the Constitution itself).

This is even worse than Herman Cain saying that he would sign a pro-life Constitutional amendment. At its worst, this betrays Cain's lack of understanding that a President simply does not sign Constitutional amendments; but at least in this particular Cain case, it may simply be an innocent gaffe.

What Michelle Bachmann said in this case was no "gaffe," but her thought out answer confirmed over Q&A at a primary debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
She doesn't get the part about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, thinking that something in the Constitution can be overridden by mere "legislation" (as opposed to a Constitutional amendment, the ratification of which is also prescribed by the Constitution itself).

Which is what I just said...
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Oct 30 2011, 07:24 PM
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 12:25 PM
It seems that she understands the Constitution, but might not understand how the legal system works with regards to the Constitution, and what is required to ratify it.
She doesn't get the part about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, thinking that something in the Constitution can be overridden by mere "legislation" (as opposed to a Constitutional amendment, the ratification of which is also prescribed by the Constitution itself).

This is even worse than Herman Cain saying that he would sign a pro-life Constitutional amendment. At its worst, this betrays Cain's lack of understanding that a President simply does not sign Constitutional amendments; but at least in this particular Cain case, it may simply be an innocent gaffe.

What Michelle Bachmann said in this case was no "gaffe," but her thought out answer confirmed over Q&A at a primary debate.
If the issue does not have to be dealt with constitutionally, then it can be clarified from legislation.

You made up the stuff about "thinking that something in the Constitution can be overridden by mere "legislation"", didn't you?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply