Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

every article and amendment, in it's entirety, though subordinate to the federal government.

and then the 14th amendment was ratified.

 

Actually I do have a clue. The U.S. Constitution prohibited the general government from forcing individual States to end slavery. Do you know what year the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery in America, was passed? The Northwest ordinance of 1787 abolished slavery in the Northwest territories.

 

Apparently you live for sound bites. I defer to actual legal scholars

Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

If you read the entire decision of Wong Kim Ark you would realize that the entire analysis of the case rests upon the criteria for Natural Born Citizens.

Beyond that- frankly- all Americans know that anyone born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen- we all learned that growing up.

Which is why these revisionist claims are so ridiculous to most people, and are essentially ignored by virtually all Americans.

 

That issue was put to rest with the 14th Amendment.

The language is very clear

 

Sorry, but again you lose the argument by your own citations. The above citation climes there are two categories, and even if someone was born in England, depending on circumstances, and parental allegiance, they may not be "natural born."

 

I just refuted this. "within the allegiance" is defined by the court as being physically present and under US jurisdiction. anyone on US soil is subject to our jurisdiction, unless they have diplomatic immunity or are an invading army.

since Obama was born on US soil, and neither of his parents were diplomats or part of a foreign invading army, he is a natural born citizen. The courts all agree, the ENTIRE congress agrees, and the voters agree. you lose

 

You'll have to exbound on that.

The 14th Amendment didn't change the first Ten Amendments nor was it believed to have done so until one hundred years later when a politically minded Supreme Court used it as an excuse to extend its jurisdiction to cases within the individual states. It was a classic example of a power grab.

- - - Updated - - -

So clear in fact that it took one hundred years for it to be interpreted that way. See my post above.

 

I don't know how much clearer that could be?

but that's what it did.

irrelevant. it took over 200 years for the second amendment to be interpreted as an individuals right to keep and bear arms by the supreme court when it struck down bans in DC and later in Chicago.

 

Only until 1808 when they banned the importation of slaves. They could have ended slavery then.

 

A three-member Indiana Court of Appeals that overruled BOTH Supreme Court decisions of Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett as NEITHER case defiantly said a child born on US soil, who has one or more non citizen parents is automatically a natural born citizen… NICE!

 

Wong Kim Ark ruled any child born on US soil is a natural born US citizen(with exception to diplomatic immunity or invading army). I showed you where in the ruling. Minor did not address the issue and is irrelevant. Ankeny CITED Wong Kim Ark in their ruling.

the courts all agree, the ENTIRE congress agrees and the voters agree. you lose.

 

Following up your subject with a predicate would be helpful.

Then why did it take one hundred years for the Supreme Court to start protecting people's rights form the State Governments?

Uh, no it didn't. It was understood from the beginning that Congress could make no law limiting the use and ownership of firearms. Many of America's Founding Fathers commented extensively on it.

 

Legally the Constitution must be interpreted according to original intent.

Therefore, it should be evident that if the purpose of the requirement to be a "natural born citizen" is to prevent anyone with foreign citizenship from serving as President, it cannot achieve that end unless, by definition, the phrase "natural born citizen" excludes anyone who might have acquired foreign citizenship by means of any one of the three modalities recognized by the law of nations: 1) jus soli (born on foreign soil), 2) jus sanguinis (born to a parent with foreign citizenship), or 3) naturalization by a foreign country. John Jay's request to Washington makes no sense otherwise, since in that case his suggested eligibility requirement would not preclude what he was seeking to prevent.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts

​

​

 

Sigh.

No- the three member Indiana Court of Appeals- comprised of actual legal experts- just confirmed what the Supreme Court already said in Wong Kim Ark- and what we all know.

No surprise to anyone but Birthers.

- - - Updated - - -

 

I can't break down my statement any further to simplify it for you.

probably the same reason it took over 200 years for the supreme court to start protecting peoples rights regarding the second amendment from state governments?

yes it did. Hellar and Mcdonald finally answered the question as to the meaning of the second amendment.

but it took the supreme court to overturn state limitations, some 200 years later.

 

I've already refuted your position.

the law of nations is completely irrelevant to US law, and did not contain the words natural born citizen in any translation until 10 years after the constitution was written.

the courts, the ENTIRE congress and the voters all agree. you lose.

 

The 14th Amendment fundamentally changed American government not when it was claimed to be ratified but later. It was not properly ratified, it benefited the elite, and radically transformed the national government around the end of 19th century.

Read it carefully.

Shall not be questioned? Who would write those words into an amendment to the Constitution? Who benefitted from those words? Also, look into the claims of why it was not properly ratified. They have a strong argument.
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm

Pre-Civil War America, Constitutional government, is quite different than what we put up with today. Post Civil War is much better for the slaves, without a doubt, yet much less equality for everyone except the power elite. Today 1% rule the 99%. The resources were much more equally divided among the free people in Lincoln's time.

Alexis de Tocqueville - 1830s

 

the 14th amendment was of course ratified.

none of this has any relevance to the discussion, and is rather incoherent rambling.

 

So in your opinion, if a state passes an ex post facto law, SCOTUS can't declare it unconstitutional. Have I got that right?

 

Read the OP and get back on topic.

 

If "judicial power" is not the power to judicially review, what do you imagine it is? If one were to look at the concept of "judicial power" in 1700s America and British Common law which we took much of our law from, the power to judicially review is exactly what is meant by "judicial power"

 

Then how would you explain, from 1787


And we dont translate our own laws. No need, they are originally written in English.

 

What does that have to do with vattel's "law of nations"?

 

Nothing, I was referring to your claim that US law

Which part dont you understand?

 

the part where your post has any relevance to mine.......................