14th Ammendment Rights? Are they valid today?

Question

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,(See Note 15) 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.

Obviously this part was changed and is moot today. So how can we use the 14th as a valid argument for children of illegals born on American soil ?

Read section 2 please as I posted. It states MALES age 21 as voters. Obviously females now vote as do 18 year olds.

Should we say the WHOLE thing is valid or just parts that suit our agendas?

DAR...I don't know how to make myself clearer. We changed the 14th to allow women to vote obviously as they aren't mentioned in the original documents. So does that pretty much outdate the entire document as being valid today? If it's not valid then how can we accept that children of illegals are citizens by birth? Also note these rights don't apply to those who broke laws.

Summer...I'm not flip flopping. Just trying to be realistic and look at this from both points of view and also by LAWS.

Kevorkian....But that would be LEGALLY under the Jurisdiction of ...wouldn't it? This is where I get confused. LOL

Visa Definition

A document stamped or affixed to the bearer's passport that enables the bearer to travel to the United States under the conditions specified for the type of visa the bearer holds. The visa is an approval for the foreign national to travel to the U.S. and ask permission to enter. It does not automatically allow admission into the U.S. nor is it any type of employment authorization.

Foreign National

Anyone who is not a citizen of the United States but is traveling to the U.S. to visit, work or play.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what part you are referring to. I don't understand your question.

This has to do with how many House of Representative reps a state has. I agree that since they are not 'citizens' the reps should be reduced and not be proportionate to population in California, etc, if that is what you are saying.

What ARE you saying?

Sorry, not being intentionally dense...just dense, maybe.
-
I think you just edit to the extent changed. 21 is now 18, male is now male or female. Indians vote so that part is irrelevant. BUT the noncitizen part means CA shouldn't have so many reps, in my view.

My view is the 14th doesn't apply because of two legal principles. One is that a court will 'presume done that which should be done' and not permit, as public policy, enforcement of a law as an end run on the law (typically.) The other is that in immigration law generally, a person is not deemed here, whether on our territory or not, unless 'admitted' by the US which to me means they didn't have their kid here, either.

However, the US Supreme court has language in a case that tends against this reading. However, the issue of birthright citizenship wasn't really briefed. I'd be interested to see THIS court rule on that topic.

Answer 2

The way our constitution works is that Ammendments are added to it, they do not go-back and re-write it.

For instance, the 18th Amendment is still part of the Constitution, even though the 21st repealed it.

All your seeing here is the same phenomenon. The 19th Amendement supercedes the reference in the 14th to 'males' only being allowed to vote. But, it doesn't invalidate the whole amendment, just the references that are in conflict with it.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment still stands:

"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."


Of course, the Constitution /is/ interpreted by the Supreme Court, so, a sufficiently anti-birthright-citizenship majority in that Court, given an apropriate case, could concievably interpret the "under the juristiction thereof" clause to exclude the children of illegal aliens or even foreign national in general. Though, it seems a stretch to me, since foreign nationals of any type /are/ under the juristiction of any state they happen to be in, while they remain in it, at least, right?

Answer 3

A valid argument for what right? The right to vote?

And yes the 14th is still valid. That amendment did a lot more then this section says. As when any amendment or provision of law, when part of it is superseded only that part becomes invalid.

The 14th amendment deals with "Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt". Nothing in current law or further amendments has changed the citizenship requirements. Born on US soil = US citizenship. US citizen = entitlement to rights. It does not matter if your parents are illegal immigrants or not.

Answer 4

This is a touchy topic for me, I don't like when our constitutional rights are messed with, but in my opinion its all in the interpretation or the reasoning behind the amendment. I think maybe a clarification is in order, maybe its time we looked at the situation to assure we are following the true intent of the Constitution.

Answer 5

the whole thing should be valid. that has nothing to do with illegals. are you a united states citizen? why are you flip flopping?

Answer 6

because the constitution states that anyone born on US soil is a citizen.

Answer 7

You moron!

Anyone born on US soil is a Citizen.
Switzerland is the only country I know of where both your parents must be citizens and it still isn't automatic.

Answer 8

if you dont follow them ,,,nope