Oklahoma Senator submits bill that violates the 14th Amendment
Red Arrow:
Quote from: Ed W on February 17, 2011, 05:55:36 pm
For those of you who are not history buffs, the Confederate States of American was awarded second place.
But the Union (USA) came in next to last. ;D
Edit: Add (USA) in an attempt to preclude smart a$$ remarks comments about me being anti-union.
guido911:
Oklahoma is not the only state doing this.
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/states-seek-to-deny-795912.html
Our constitution specifically discusses certain rights which are unique to Oklahoma citizens. I would like to have the time to do some research (real legal research not opinions on the web) on whether the feds can force a state to give children born to illegals rights under its own constitution. I am sure there are substantive/procedural due process and equal protection issues that are implicated.
Oil Capital:
Quote from: ZYX on February 16, 2011, 09:30:55 pm
How could you possibly interpret the 14th ammendment ANY other way?
Not difficult at all if you read all of the words to have meaning. The issue is: "what is the meaning of the phrase ' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'"? The current interpretation, by granting citizenship to anyone born in this country, pretty much ignores those words. The argument is that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must have meaning. There is legislative history suggesting that the words were in fact intended to exclude persons born in the U.S. but who are children of citizens of another country (and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of that other country).
Conan71:
Symbolic legislation is a complete waste of time, there's far more pressing issues facing our state and nation right now than to keep pulling partisan shenanigans.
heironymouspasparagus:
What legislative history is that? Besides the ignorance being indulged in by Oklahoma and Georgia.
The is more than ample judicial history - as well as the amendment itself - that trumps ANY "legislative history" except for that "legislative history" that actually ratified the amendment in the first place. You know, that 2/3 majority of state legislative history required to ratify any amendment.
This is just another birther BS type moment for Oklahoma.
And Conan, I am sure you cringe when I say it, but I couldn't agree more!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page