"The 14th Amendment, you'll all remember, came after the Civil War, remember what the Civil War was about? That was freeing the slaves. It wasn't about allowing illegal aliens to run across the border, drop a baby and say, "Ha ha, you missed me, I'm a citizen now."
Do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment, that's what they were hoping to do? She said both she and Chris Christie, I saw, saying on TV yesterday, "Well, of course you'd need a Constitutional amendment to do that, that's crazy.""
(video at the link)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/18/coulter_on_carly_fiorina_i_have_turned_against_her_with_the_hot_hot_hate_of_a_thousand_suns.html
46 comments:
Fiornia never received another offer after getting fired and receiving a golden parachute.
And she was a woman executive in tech; that says a lot.
I agree with Trump. Fiorina's face is a wreck-too much surgery.
tits.
The media and the democrat party (but I repeat myself) don't understand the 14th Amendment. The GOP isn't much better.
Misinterpretation of the 14th
This story is from August.
I see the Union Leader endorsed Christie. Trump lashed out like a middle school girly girl.
FWIW, the 14th Amendment. Clearly, the context is the Civil War and freed slaves.
Amendment XIV
Moreover, there is a link inside April's link (kudos, ma'am, a very nifty bit of research) which has the important distinctions.
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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.
Thank you - Ed. It was to make sure former slaves were recognized as citizens. Today it's been twisted to include anchor babies, dreamers, and any illegal who entered the nation illegally - even thru the birth canal. Get them a voter registration card - STAT.
Thanks, April, very informative.
lol Nick, Christie could maybe get the nom being Trump-lite.
Well it's news to me, AJ, good catch :)
When you get past the veneer of "toughness" Trump and Christie are both kinda girly, like Obama. Think of all the male politicians running for prez on both tickets. To varying degrees, all are girly.
The context surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment is important, but the plain reading of its words matters even more. For one thing, I see how it grants citizenship to the children legal immigrants who are themselves not citizens. This removes the burden of naturalization from those children (but not their parents, of course). Thus, the 14th Amendment serves an important purpose by breaking a chain that would otherwise lead to generations of legal residents who are not true citizens as in European countries.
@Nick: I think you were kind of girly for voting for Obama in the first place.
How are you defining girly? Trump can irritate with his distended, pampered air. Rubio's voice get's on my nerves. Just too young. Cruz is a bit...fastidious? Bush is delicately genteel. Carson's voice is too mild with no force.
Oh, agree, chick, I meant to say. It says born in the US, so I think it would def need an amendment.
lol Nick, Christie could maybe get the nom being Trump-lite.
I think that's what George Will senses and is why he suggested a "second look" at Christie.
Christie won't fly as "Trump-lite" unless he bothers to leave NJ and stump across the South and Midwest and pretend to actually care about the sorts of people drawn to Trump rallies. I don't see him doing that.
Trump can win w/o NH. Who really cares about that state since that damn face fell off the mountain?
chick, you are girly for holding that girly grudge. I always sensed that is the source of your visceral hatred of Titus. Besides girly, it is also just so fucking lame and stale. Get some new material. Maybe a lame chirbit? That's the ticket. Yeah, a chirbit, folks love those.
Why wouldn't Christie stump across the nation? That's in the job description.
deborah, Just like women can pick out women's characteristics[MamaM is a master], men can pick out men's as well. Politics does not attract manly men. It's not just US male politicians. Male pols around the world are almost all girly. Even the men that women find attractive are not manly. Bubba was a mamma's boy. That new Trudeau in Canada is very girly. Think of football coaches and baseball managers. They are manly leaders. Although even those are starting to show girly tendencies. Joe Madden is kinda girly. So is Joe Girardi. It is a Je ne sais quoi. Ooops, using French is kinda girly.
I assume you all see the irony in assigning the "lite" suffix to Christie.
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.
With legal aliens who are lawfully 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. This is also true. This is why some people have dual citizenship.
Yeeeesssss.
deborah said...
Why wouldn't Christie stump across the nation? That's in the job description.
He came to California for that debate at the Reagan library, but that's about it. I think he's too busy being a good governor to stump around much, let along the South. Has Christie ever been to Texas or Arizona? Trump is good at getting the little cumulative states. I don't think he's focussed on the big states yet. We should see that soon though.
Maybe that's what this country needs, some good, proven leaders from professional sports. Either field or front office guys. Guys who know how to compete, negotiate, and fucking win!
Any sort of language or rhetoric which puts off or threatens legal immigrants' rights will rightly be seen as xenophobic and will flop big time.
Christie would have to come back over Rubio's body, but he doesn't have what The Donald has in terms of getting up and going after somebody.
Christie is more reactive, he puts down hecklers.
Trump will take on somebody he doesn't like, very proactive.
And right now, Christie is something like 5% approval in Jersey.
deborah said...
Why wouldn't Christie stump across the nation? That's in the job description.
Not the places, the people. East Coast thing.
ndspinelli said...
deborah, Just like women can pick out women's characteristics[MamaM is a master], men can pick out men's as well. Politics does not attract manly men. It's not just US male politicians. Male pols around the world are almost all girly. Even the men that women find attractive are not manly. Bubba was a mamma's boy. That new Trudeau in Canada is very girly.
That's to court the women's vote (again, why did women vote for Jack Kennedy and Willie? aside from the Fifty Shades of Gray masochism). We'll never have a President who looks like Lincoln unless it's a woman. Civilization is rather emasculating unless you're really in a macho field, like the military. Even so, Jefferson Davis was a lousy President.
Think of the really tough guys who became President - Jackson, TR (cowboy, crime-busting police commish, Rough Rider), aside from them, not a lot of head-busters. Interesting Sherman never wanted the job. MacArthur was a mama's boy, but he walked the walk and flirted with the idea.
Nixon, in his own way, George W, but whom else?
LBJ.
Nixon was not the least bit manly. I think he may have been gay. NTTAWWT. W was a mama's boy and a cheerleader for chrissake. Putin is crazy and mean and overcompensates on manliness. I think he hits from both sides of the plate. I do agree civilization can be emasculating. As far as military leaders, Patreus is pretty girly and Obama/Hillary took him out of the running by the prosecution. I've been intrigued by recently retired Ray Odierno. There's a manly mofo. Not macho manly, comfortable in his own skin manly..the real deal manly. "I think it moved."
LBJ was manly, but he fought Viet Nam like a girl.
Putin definitely overcompensates, but that may be for his height.
Some stars flame out by going all super nova; other become white dwarves.
Not funnin' at all. A loveless marriage and real closeness w/ Bebe.
Get some new material. Maybe a lame chirbit? That's the ticket. Yeah, a chirbit, folks love those.
You know who else pooh-poo'd those chirbits? Titus. Interesting
ndspinelli said...
Nixon was not the least bit manly. I think he may have been gay. NTTAWWT. W was a mama's boy and a cheerleader for chrissake.
I meant Washington. As for Nixon, you're starting to sound like Troop.
As far as military leaders, Patreus is pretty girly
Why do I get the feeling nd would think George Marshall was also girly? Patton was a macho jerk that got a lot of his guys killed. The same can be said for Howlin' Mad Smith.
Good sense is not girly.
LBJ was manly
You must be joking. Lynnon Bird was an outhouse adulterer and just another crooked politician.
deborah said...
Putin definitely overcompensates, but that may be for his height.
He's 5' 7", no John Wayne, but he must have issues.
Any man who will lift his shirt and show you his scar is manly. Case closed.
Men and women obviously have different notions of "manly", just as they do of "womanly."
Men who dwell on who's manly or not might be projecting somethong.
Manly men do manly things. Politics is not manly. That's why we should choose our leaders at the annual Festivus celebrations.
LBJ
Any man who calls up Hager slacks to custom order pants with a more generous cut for his "nuts" is a manly in my book: link* Can you imagine a woman doing the equivalent for better lift and separation? (Well maybe Christine Hendricks)
_____________
*h/t: R&B (a long time ago:)
Yeah, if you define "Manly Man" as a knuckle dragging, cave man yeah, most Pols aren't "Manly men".
"Unmanly men" rule the world. Its the guys with the power and the money: the Hedge fund managers, the Corporate CEOs, the bankers and the federal reserve, the high powered lawyers and the Computer geeks.
The "Manly Men" just take orders or live in the toy store section - like sports.
Oh, speaking of manly-men, voice-recordings and homos, did you catch the link to Andrew Dice Gay? The video is an audio recording of a radio show some six years old. A radio listener calls in with the suggestion, "Hey, I wonder what Andrew Dice Gay would sound like." And that's all it took for one of the hosts, a guy named Ant, to launch into his interpretation, an on-the-spot improv that's become classic for his applying the Dice Clay template against a gay background, thus spontaneously things like, "Jack and Jill went up da hill, Jill came down, I went up and blew Jack! Ooooooh. Andrew Dice Gay." And the studio is in stitches, one after the other in series the guy puts on Clay's voice and does his entire routine obnoxiously gayified as Clay might do.
chick, I busted my own balls for talking about being manly. "I think it moved" being the key quote. I also self busted for using a French phrase. If you're going to insist on bringing up my 2008 vote, something for which I have dome ample mea culpa's, then expect me to come back twice as hard @ you. I grew up in a blue collar, street fightin' town.
I've previously listened to that clip of LBJ special ordering his slacks. And, he would hold meetings while he sat on the shitter. Manly.
I agree with spinelli.
Almost all male politicians are girly-they are want to be actors and love the camera and microphone.
Putin reminds me of a masc fag-wanting show the world how butch he is-which is very gay, by the way, May.
@ Ed a manly doof, and not presidential.
@ Nick and Titus, yes, I'm beginning to see. Male pols are power-seeking attention whores going the easy route: schmoozing and dining using other people's money. Hostessing for the sharks...the real movers and shakers.
rcocean, Interesting comment. It does seem the girly geeks from high school and college do run the world for the most part, in both the public and private sector.
Different people interpret "manly" and "womanly" in different ways.
I don't care. I just want an adult with a brain. We have been ruled by children for far too long.
I want a President who respects the people of the United States and their Constitution.
Not in the abstract, or selectively, or some of the time, but in reality, all the time.
You are not President of the World or of Gaia or of Utopia or of Legoland.
You are President of the United States.
If that's not good enough for you then you should get a different job.
Be president of Mexico or Canada or something. I hear they're not at all particular.
The U.S. needs an adult because we're an invention of adults. You have to have the maturity to understand about civil rights and separation of co-equal branches of government. Not a collection of tribes who have to be balanced against each other.
Do not disparage our civil rights to promote dependency. Do not waste our money; be prepared to account for your spending annually. Do not lie, cover up, or repetitively stray outside your constitutional parameters. Also, obviously, no kow-towing to the moneyed interests dressing it up like you all care about the poors and/or the environment, no bowing or apologizing to foreigners, no fiddling the data, no siccing the government/press on political opponents, no ignoring foreign threats and calling it "diplomacy."
I would vote for Amartel. Although I just learned today he's a barrister. I know some damn good attorneys. I'm betting Amartel is one of the good attorneys. A good, common sensed, Ivy League, attorney is a big find.
Post a Comment