Is birthright citizenship on the way out??

CFM said:
The spirit of the 14th wasn't intended to reward the by products of illegals coming here and doffing them off.
Click to expand...

The spirit of the 14th was to prevent government entities in the southern states to treat newly freed blacks as anything less than citizens with all the rights that whites had.

The constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The spirit of the 14th was to prevent government entities in the southern states to treat newly freed blacks as anything less than citizens with all the rights that whites had.

The constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people.
Click to expand...

I fully understand the intent of the 14th. It refuted and did away with the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott. It was one of the 3 amendments often referred to as Reconstruction or Civil War Amendments. It was never designed or intended to grant citizenship to a kid because his/her parents decided to come into the country illegally and doff one off. It considered the slaves freed by the 13th Amendment as people rather than property as had been interpreted in Dred Scott.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and you think it's anarchy for the people to be more powerful than the government? those damned founders and their love of anarchy.
Click to expand...

Is that what I said? Interesting how you have no problem doing what you claimed I did related to your stance on drunk driving and license checks. The difference is I expressed what you said and you make things up about me.
 
CFM said:
I fully understand the intent of the 14th. It refuted and did away with the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott. It was one of the 3 amendments often referred to as Reconstruction or Civil War Amendments. It was never designed or intended to grant citizenship to a kid because his/her parents decided to come into the country illegally and doff one off. It considered the slaves freed by the 13th Amendment as people rather than property as had been interpreted in Dred Scott.
Click to expand...

then a simple amendment would clarify those exact words, wouldn't they?
 
CFM said:
Is that what I said? Interesting how you have no problem doing what you claimed I did related to your stance on drunk driving and license checks. The difference is I expressed what you said and you make things up about me.
Click to expand...

and yet you still get both of them wrong. you intentionally misconstrue my statements because you hate that I showed you were wrong. it's ok, it's what freedom haters do. And yes, by the vague words you put out there, that is pretty much what you said. now, if you'd like to clarify what you meant by "Do you honestly think the framers intended for society to be based on the anarchy?" as anything other than government needing to be more powerful than the people or there would be anarchy, we'll wait.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and yet you still get both of them wrong. you intentionally misconstrue my statements because you hate that I showed you were wrong. it's ok, it's what freedom haters do. And yes, by the vague words you put out there, that is pretty much what you said. now, if you'd like to clarify what you meant by "Do you honestly think the framers intended for society to be based on the anarchy?" as anything other than government needing to be more powerful than the people or there would be anarchy, we'll wait.
Click to expand...

All I did was state your words.

I didn't say those words, just expressed that you claimed you knew what someone meant and used the excuse of "you may as well have". Keep up, stupid. I thought you claimed to be smart. You're as stupid as the average 85 IQ blacks in the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top