Captainkickback hasnt a clue

[rachel]

Captainkickback wrote in another thread:

The 14th Amendment in its entirety reads:

"Amendment XIV
Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."


Okay, now Section One reads: "Section 1. 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. "

It's only two sentences, yet, there are boobs and clods who somehow went through 12 years of school, with little or no ability to understand the written word. Either that or they live in a fantasy world and should not be trusted with anything sharper than a Nerf Ball.

Passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, the first sentence (in blue) merely means that if you are born (or naturalized) in the United States (or areas subject to the USA's jurisdiction - like territories, embassies, etc.) you are a citizen of the United States AND the state in which you reside. This accomplished two things. First, it immediately made all former slaves (who had ben considered chattel) citizens of the USA and the state in which they resided. Second, it established a precedent in that as long as you were born in the USA, you are a citizen - hence various "poppin' momma junkets" to the US so foreign nationals can have their kids born here. But I digress.

That first sentence did not grant any magical, mystical powers did it? No, it did not.

The second sentence merely states that the individual state shall not make laws that deprive a citizen of any rights guaranted and protected by the Constitution. Why does it say this? So that states would not directly pass laws that stripped citizens of their Constitutional rights. A noble idea, but it gave rise to the "seperate but equal" doctrine which was pure racist sh*t designed to keep power vested in the minority (whites). But, that's another topic for another time......

Again, no magical "sovereign rights" given out here, or in the first sentence, or anywhere else in the amendments. In fact, the word sovereign is not even mentioned in the amendment. So soprry Rachel, the 14th amendment does not grant you special super honky powers over other lesser mortals and no amount of wishful thinking or fantasy will make it so.

Well Captain, do you consider yourself a boob or a clod?
You accuse me of not understanding, but yet you completely leave out "

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

" when you attempted to explain the 14th amendment.

You didnt go to the link I provided did you? If you did you'd completely understand what "

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

" means and why its in the 14th in the first place.
Because of rights not everyone born or naturalized is a U.S. citizen. Only those born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens.
If you read the link I supplied it clearly details which Bill of Rights, in full or in part, are incorporated into the 14th amendment for the U.S. citizen. According to the Senate not all of the Bil of Rights are available to the U.S. citizen.

A couple of questions for you Captain.
1. What act of Congress did the phrase "born or naturalized" come from?
2. Do you actually beleive the 14th amendmend includes everyone when Public Law says otherwise?
3. Do you understand why the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was written into the 14th amendment. (Its related very close the question 1 above.)
4. Do you beleive an act of Congress can change/amend/ nullify any portion of the U.S. Constitution?
Lets see if you actually know or understand something besides your worthless side remarks.

[jg]

Cut and pasted from http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, 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 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

[rachel]

Cut and pasted from http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, 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 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

But of what act of Congress did the phrase come from jg?
And what was the sole subject of this acts purpose in relation to citizenship?
And what about those People who are born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction?
My point being is this.
The phrase ",and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a set condition beyond being born or naturalized. This link explains why
Can you jg explain your theory after reading footnote 37 of this link?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/018.pdf

I ask because if everyone as you say is a "U.S. citizen" because of the 14th then act of Congress that brought forth the 14th amendment strips amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and allows only partialty to the rest of the Bill of Rights as this public law says.
How can an act of Congress do that?
I'm under the beleif that Congress cannot ratify the Constitution. Therefore this 1866 act of Congress must be limited in subject if Congress cannot ratify the Constitution to limitations of the Bill of Rights.

[Dr. Caligari]

You didnt go to the link I provided did you? If you did you'd completely understand what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means and why its in the 14th in the first place.
Because of rights not everyone born or naturalized is a U.S. citizen. Only those born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens.

The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Arm case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), held that only 3 classes of people born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof": children of foreign diplomats holding diplomatic immunity; children born to soldiers of invading armies during war time; and children born to Indian tribes that had not yet been militarily subdued by the United States government. The third category no longer exists, and no foreign military force has held any U.S. territory since the War of 1812, so the only people born in the 50 states who are not U.S. citizens are the children of foreign diplomats.

If you disagree, please cite a federal court case, decided since 1898, which holds that anyone born in the 50 states is not a U.S. citizen.

[jg]

rachel, why are you saying some act of Congress has anything to do with what the 14th amendment means ("But of what act of Congress did the phrase come from jg?" and "The phrase ",and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a set condition beyond being born or naturalized." ) and at the same time saying than "Congress cannot ratify the Constitution." ?

I gave you quotes from those in Congress that wrote the proposed 14th amendment.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States.

See http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

Congress wrote it to mean what Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Edward Cowan said it was to mean. they konw because they were there. The legislatures of the several States in 28 states, not the Congress, ratified the amendment.

Fottnote 37 is referenced in the link you gave here:

Similar language asserting that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause may be found in
numerous cases. 36 Most of the provisions have now been so applied. 37

and was referring to the provision of the amendment that said

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.

That provision does not in any way define, or limit, to whom the amendment applies.

"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the amendment will not 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. We have it from the horse's mouth.

[rachel]

rachel, why are you saying some act of Congress has anything to do with what the 14th amendment means ("But of what act of Congress did the phrase come from jg?" and "The phrase ",and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a set condition beyond being born or naturalized." ) and at the same time saying than "Congress cannot ratify the Constitution." ?

I gave you quotes from those in Congress that wrote the proposed 14th amendment.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States.

See http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

Congress wrote it to mean what Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Edward Cowan said it was to mean. they konw because they were there. The legislatures of the several States in 28 states, not the Congress, ratified the amendment.

Fottnote 37 is referenced in the link you gave here:

Similar language asserting that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause may be found in
numerous cases. 36 Most of the provisions have now been so applied. 37

and was referring to the provision of the amendment that said

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.

That provision does not in any way define, or limit, to whom the amendment applies.

"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the amendment will not 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. We have it from the horse's mouth.

Yadda Yadda Yadda!
So why dont you show the the list footnote 37 was reffering to?

formulations
for the speech and press clauses appeared early. E.g., West Virginia State
Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943); Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U.S.
147, 160 (1939). In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965), Justice Douglas
stated the holding as ‘‘that the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the
Federal Government, and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth
Amendment, forbids’’ the state practice at issue.
36 E.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S.
213 (1967); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S.
436 (1970); Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).
37 The following list does not attempt to distinguish between those Bill of Rights
provisions which have been held to have themselves been incorporated or absorbed
by the Fourteenth Amendment and those provisions which the Court indicated at
the time were applicable against the States because they were fundamental and not
merely because they were named in the Bill of Rights. Whichever formulation was
originally used, the former is now the one used by the Court. Duncan v. Louisiana,
391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968).
First Amendment—
Religion—
Free exercise: Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262 (1934); Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 300, 303 (1940).
Establishment: Everson. v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 3, 7, 8 (1947); Illinois
ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Speech— Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925); Fiske v. Kansas, 274
U.S. 380 (1927); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
Press— Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 701 (1931).
Assembly— DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
Petition— DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. at 364, 365; Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S.
496 (1939); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).
Fourth Amendment—
Search and seizure— Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949); Mapp v. Ohio, 367
U.S. 643 (1961).
Fifth Amendment—
Double jeopardy— Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969); Ashe v. Swenson,
397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel).
Self-incrimination— Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); Griffin v. California,
380 U.S. 609 (1965).
Just compensation— Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226
(1897).
searches and seizures of the Fourth Amendment, . . . and the right
to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, . . . are all to be
enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according
to the same standards that protect those personal rights
against federal encroachment.’’ And Justice Clark was enabled to
say: ‘‘First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment’s
mandate that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ has
been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth
Amendment.’’ 35 Similar language asserting that particular provisions
of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause may be found in
numerous cases. 36 Most of the provisions have now been so applied.
37
VerDate Apr<15>2004 15:03 Jun 18, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 8222 Sfmt 8222 C:\CONAN\CON022.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON022
AMENDMENTS—RESTRICTING FEDERAL POWER 1007
First Through Tenth Amendments Bill of Rights
Sixth Amendment—
Speedy trial— Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).
Public trial— In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Jury trial— Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
Impartial Jury— Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961); Turner v. Louisiana, 379
U.S. 466 (1965).
Notice of charges— In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Confrontation— Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 380
U.S. 415 (1965).
Compulsory process— Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
Counsel— Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372
U.S. 335 (1963).
Eighth Amendment—
Cruel and unusual punishment— Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329
U.S. 459 (1947); Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
Provisions not applied are:
Second Amendment—
Right to keep and bear arms—Cf. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542,
553 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886).
Third Amendment—
Quartering troops in homes—No cases.
Fifth Amendment—
Grand Jury indictment— Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
Seventh Amendment—
Jury trial in civil cases in which value of controversy exceeds $20— Cf. Adamson
v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 64–65 (1947) (Justice Frankfurter concurring).
See Minneapolis & St. L. R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).
Eighth Amendment—
Bail— But see Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 365 (1971).
Excessive Fines— But see Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) (utilizing equal
protection to prevent automatic jailing of indigents when others can pay a fine and
avoid jail).
38 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1964); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23
(1963); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S.
66 (1970); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970); Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223
(1978); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 780 n.16 (1978) (specifically
the First Amendment speech and press clauses); Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S.
28 (1978); Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U S. 130 (1979).
39 Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 106–107 (1970) (Justice Black concurring in
part and dissenting in part), quoting Malloy v.

So why are these highlighted provisions not incorporated into the 14th amendment? The 14th did not alter in any way the Bill of Rights.

You see the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is where the definition of U.S. citizen was first applied. The language was then incorporated into the 14th, but stipulated as a condition by use of a comma.
The language ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" denotes the jurisdictional limitations of Congress's subjects in the act of 1866. It doesnt mean everybody; see title 42
Look at it this way.
Why the 1866 Civil Rights Act in the first place if all the provisions of every right of the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the 14th amendment?
The 14th doesnt apply to everyone because as you see footnote 37 doesnt incorporate all the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Amendments 9 or 10 are not even mentioned for consideration for incorporation into the 14th for U.S. citizen.

Starting to see any differences between what State citizen are compared to that of the limited congressional U.S. citizen?

You know what frosts me Captain?
I want all my rights as the U.S. Constitution says I am to have and not those measly two bit privileges which those old cigars in congress want you to have.

[Paul]

The 14th doesnt apply to everyone because as you see footnote 37 doesnt incorporate all the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Amen! Truer words were never spoken!

[jg]

rachel, you seem to have it bass ackwards.

The list in footnote 37 are the items that the provision of the 14th amendment about
"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. " does or does not apply to.

The lists you gave and footnote 37 are attached to the statement "Similar language asserting that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause may be found in numerous cases. 36 Most of the provisions have now been so applied. 37"

The due process clause of the 14th amendment is about preventing states from restricting your constitutional rights which you have because you are a citizen of the United States, and about protecting the Bill Rights from being abridged by the state.

In other words, the list is about what application of the due process clause of the 14th amendment has on State and not federal due process. the lists are about what the federal government will insist states must protect and that states must provide due process.

No one (except you) has claimed the 14th amendment can or should in any way change any of your rights under the first ten amendments.

[Prof]

rachel, you seem to have it bass ackwards.

The list in footnote 37 are the items that the provision of the 14th amendment about
"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. " does or does not apply to.

The lists you gave and footnote 37 are attached to the statement "Similar language asserting that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause may be found in numerous cases. 36 Most of the provisions have now been so applied. 37"

The due process clause of the 14th amendment is about preventing states from restricting your constitutional rights which you have because you are a citizen of the United States, and about protecting the Bill Rights from being abridged by the state.

In other words, the list is about what application of the due process clause of the 14th amendment has on State and not federal due process. the lists are about what the federal government will insist states must protect and that states must provide due process.

No one (except you) has claimed the 14th amendment can or should in any way change any of your rights under the first ten amendments.

What Rachel and lots of other folks, including the denizens of suijuris.net, do not seem to grasp is that the Bill of Rights only applied to protect citizens of the US from the grasp of the federal government created by the Constitution. States could and did adopt constitutions and laws which allowed the various States to violate the Bill of Rights protections. The classic example is the First Amendment: Massachusettes retained an official State Church well into the 1800's. The application of the Bill of Rights to the actions of State governments -- based upon the protections afforded by the 14th Amendment to US citizens affected by the acts of State governments -- has been gradual. The 14th has yet to be held by the Supreme Court to incorporate the protections of the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment, for example. (The pending 2nd Amendment case will not answer that issue; the case deals with federal restrictions on gun ownership imposed by the government of the District of Columbia which is a creation of the federal government or is part of the federal government, and the 2nd Amendment applies directly and without incorporation.)

I'll put it another way: Until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, a State government could violate any provision of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution at will; fortunately, most State Constitutions provide(d) similar protections to those set out in the Bill of Rights.

[Burzmali]

You know what frosts me Captain?
I want all my rights as the U.S. Constitution says I am to have and not those measly two bit privileges which those old cigars in congress want you to have.

Then you and I need to convince more people and so forth and so one to STOP VOTING FOR THESE RELICS!

Well, part of it is the structure of Congress. The longer someone holds a seat, the more influence they have. In many cases a sluggish but senor senator will get more done for his constituents than a well-meaning energetic freshman senator.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

-snip- And I think there is too much useless gun legislation on the books and that FCC does a tremendous job at supressing free speech and does so in a selective manner. ...

I agree on both. Care for a bit of dry humor at the expense of the FCC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmmAdbDF1xA

[jg]

Then you and I need to convince more people and so forth and so one to STOP VOTING FOR THESE RELICS!

Well, part of it is the structure of Congress. The longer someone holds a seat, the more influence they have. In many cases a sluggish but senor senator will get more done for his constituents than a well-meaning energetic freshman senator.

Who do I see about getting more undone ?

[grixit]

Then you and I need to convince more people and so forth and so one to STOP VOTING FOR THESE RELICS!

Well, part of it is the structure of Congress. The longer someone holds a seat, the more influence they have. In many cases a sluggish but senor senator will get more done for his constituents than a well-meaning energetic freshman senator.

Who do I see about getting more undone ?

Well up until recently Ted Kennedy was in charge of undoing various articles of clothing. I don't know who takes over during his incapacitation.

[webhick]

Well up until recently Ted Kennedy was in charge of undoing various articles of clothing. I don't know who takes over during his incapacitation.

Clinton? Just don't ask me which one - I can never tell them apart.

[rachel]

rachel, you seem to have it bass ackwards.

The list in footnote 37 are the items that the provision of the 14th amendment about
"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. " does or does not apply to.

The lists you gave and footnote 37 are attached to the statement "Similar language asserting that particular provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause may be found in numerous cases. 36 Most of the provisions have now been so applied. 37"

The due process clause of the 14th amendment is about preventing states from restricting your constitutional rights which you have because you are a citizen of the United States, and about protecting the Bill Rights from being abridged by the state.

In other words, the list is about what application of the due process clause of the 14th amendment has on State and not federal due process. the lists are about what the federal government will insist states must protect and that states must provide due process.

No one (except you) has claimed the 14th amendment can or should in any way change any of your rights under the first ten amendments.

What Rachel and lots of other folks, including the denizens of suijuris.net, do not seem to grasp is that the Bill of Rights only applied to protect citizens of the US from the grasp of the federal government created by the Constitution. States could and did adopt constitutions and laws which allowed the various States to violate the Bill of Rights protections. The classic example is the First Amendment: Massachusettes retained an official State Church well into the 1800's. The application of the Bill of Rights to the actions of State governments -- based upon the protections afforded by the 14th Amendment to US citizens affected by the acts of State governments -- has been gradual. The 14th has yet to be held by the Supreme Court to incorporate the protections of the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment, for example. (The pending 2nd Amendment case will not answer that issue; the case deals with federal restrictions on gun ownership imposed by the government of the District of Columbia which is a creation of the federal government or is part of the federal government, and the 2nd Amendment applies directly and without incorporation.)

I'll put it another way: Until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, a State government could violate any provision of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution at will; fortunately, most State Constitutions provide(d) similar protections to those set out in the Bill of Rights.

Well Prof,
If thats what you wish to beleive then so be it. I doubt your ability. Your opinion is just empty opinion showing no authority when compared to how courts actual see it.

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Jones v. Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

Would you or Captian care to take a stab at the underline below to explain what this court meant when refering to as not distinct communities consisting of the states severally?
Sounds like they just through "of America" right out the door for the corporate version of "United States" to take over.
Sounds like this and other court cites make you into of the likes of a Hendrickson blow hard.
I dont know what or who you are, but I doubt your equiped to practice law on a constitutional level, especially when it comes to rights.

“As citizens of the United States we are members of a single great community consisting of all the states united, and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally. No citizen of the United States is an alien in any state of the Union; and the very status of national citizenship connotes equality of rights and privileges, so far as they flow from such citizenship, everywhere within the limits of the United States.” Colgate v Harvey 296 U.S. 404 (1935) (Overruled on other grounds).

Hey Prof,
Not to side track, but if you will.........
Keep " single great community consisting of all the states united" in mind if you ever go and look up how each and every state defines itself after the adoption of new state constitutions since 1868.
If you do decide to look these definitions up why are possessions, territories and DC in the definition of "state" when these are not enjoying "statehood"?
I find that each state defines itself the same as 26USC 7701 "united states".

[Imalawman]

Here's my rebuttal - Rachel, you're an idiot. Ah, there, I hope that settles everything. Seeing as how i'm embroiled in a long tax trial, that's about all the time I have to spend with the likes of Rachel, a mental midget.

[webhick]

a mental midget.

I believe they prefer the term "mentally dwarfed."

[Imalawman]

a mental midget.

I believe they prefer the term "mentally dwarfed."

Mea Culpa. I sit corrected.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

a mental midget.

I believe they prefer the term "mentally dwarfed."

Rachel will be a nice Ph.D. dissertion for someone researching Vestigial Neurology and Cognition.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Well up until recently Ted Kennedy was in charge of undoing various articles of clothing. I don't know who takes over during his incapacitation.

Clinton? Just don't ask me which one - I can never tell them apart.

It's gotta be "H". We've already decided on another thread that "B's" inflatable raft won't hold air anymore.