11
11
0
From "The Washington Post"
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Election 2016
Politics
Law
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
1
1
0
The question of birth right goes a lot farther than the current 5 min spot on the news. And it's been address by a few presidents over the last 30-40 years. Every president has faced this problem, and will continue to do so. Our laws are flawed, period. They don't protect the immigrant, and they don't protect those enforcing the laws. I don't have the expertise to debate all the complications of this mess, but I am smart enough to know that the current system is broken and nobody sitting in office or wanting to sit in office will do anything to fix it.
I will leave you with this, China who enjoys way too many perks from this and previous administration is one of the biggest abuser of our immigration law. Yes we have millions of people from Mexico and Central and South America here illegally, but China does not cross our southern border to violate the laws. They fly into Saipan, a US territory, were thousands of ABC or Chinese Born American babies are born every year. This has been going on for decades, and now is part of Saipan's main tourist money and will likely not end any time soon. Chinese families fly in, stay for the duration of the pregnancy and leave with a child and a US Passport for that child. This grants the family the right to enter the US mainland and stay under the current laws. Now take the investor visas that the Chinese buy out yearly, nearly 80% or more of the 10,000 yearly visas, add the illegal entries that fly in or enter by boat/freighters and are then granted automatic asylum status, this occur daily, and those numbers add up. They may not reach the numbers from our southern border, but I don't see immigrant picking fruit and vegetables in California being a bigger threat than Chinese are.
No current Rep or Dem running for POTUS will fix this problem, Trump can blah blah blah his way to the nomination, but he will not fix our immigration problems, even if the GOP controls both House and Senate, it's political suicide.
I will leave you with this, China who enjoys way too many perks from this and previous administration is one of the biggest abuser of our immigration law. Yes we have millions of people from Mexico and Central and South America here illegally, but China does not cross our southern border to violate the laws. They fly into Saipan, a US territory, were thousands of ABC or Chinese Born American babies are born every year. This has been going on for decades, and now is part of Saipan's main tourist money and will likely not end any time soon. Chinese families fly in, stay for the duration of the pregnancy and leave with a child and a US Passport for that child. This grants the family the right to enter the US mainland and stay under the current laws. Now take the investor visas that the Chinese buy out yearly, nearly 80% or more of the 10,000 yearly visas, add the illegal entries that fly in or enter by boat/freighters and are then granted automatic asylum status, this occur daily, and those numbers add up. They may not reach the numbers from our southern border, but I don't see immigrant picking fruit and vegetables in California being a bigger threat than Chinese are.
No current Rep or Dem running for POTUS will fix this problem, Trump can blah blah blah his way to the nomination, but he will not fix our immigration problems, even if the GOP controls both House and Senate, it's political suicide.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
PO1 Dean Chapman - that's not really how US debt works, and even if it did most experts think it would be more harmful to the Chinese than it would be to the US.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I really don't think it was a Republican win to begin with. These are not Republican these are Evangelical/Tea Party extremist that has high-jack the GOP. I just can't for the life of me understand how any Veteran would even consider voting for any of these clowns, not after they voted against the VA bill over and over. Bozo the clown may have a better chance than any of the GOP clowns.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
Cpl Tony Yang, I'm sure Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina haven't voted for any VA bills and both seem quite intelligent. Since I am not a one issue voter they are the only Presidential Candidates that I would be willing to vote for if I had to vote tomorrow. They would be a dream ticket for POTUS & VP.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
Katrina, they don't need to vote, they're guilty by association. The VA bill is not the only issue I have with the GOP. Their warmongering, delusional "god speak to me" so I must be right, and their servitude towards the rich. Perhaps when I win hundreds of millions of dollars would I consider voting for the GOP so they can protect my interest. Until then, I'm voting for equality and that is something the GOP does not advocate because it's all about protecting the rich at all cost.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
Richard, it is obvious that no politic party is for the little people. However, the fact of the matter is that the Democrat at least tries to help the little people by advocating a raise in the minimum wage, ACA, education, and social program. While the Republican vehemently voted against such assistance all the while give corporations and tax breaks to the rich. It seems greed has no end on the side of the Republicans. Choosing the Democrat is the better of the two evil at least I'll know that if I ever fall on hard times there are program to assist me and help me get back on my feet. Government is created for three purpose...Protect, Provide, and Legislate. Apparently the Republican don't have the same view unless it benefit them and their interest.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson Tony's single issue vote is anyone but republican. It wouldn't matter if it was Abraham Lincoln, tony would vote against him because of the R behind his name. Robert Byrd would have got his vote because of the D behind his name even though he was not only a K3 chapter leader but was voted in unanimously as an exalted cyclops in the Klan. He has a dogmatic faith in all things liberal, the ends justifies the means.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
So does that mean children of military families will no longer be true American citizens, how does it affect children with only one American parent. Sounds like a bunch of carp to me to insure government doesn't shrink because new rules n reg s will dominate
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Neither Donald (if elected) nor the supreme court has the power to end it since it is unconstitutional anyway. Does anyone not see section 5 below of the 14th amendment? It says CONGRESS shall have the power, not the Executive and not the Judicial.
14th Amendment - Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
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."
Senator Howard stated, "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. "
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.
Who here has a reading comprehension problem with the language spoken by the Senator who served on the committee while drafting the Fourteenth Amendment?
14th Amendment - Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
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."
Senator Howard stated, "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. "
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.
Who here has a reading comprehension problem with the language spoken by the Senator who served on the committee while drafting the Fourteenth Amendment?
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; In brief, DRED SCOTT was "settled law" and if the US government had not CHANGED the law through the legislative process then it would still be the law of the United States of America.
"Settled Law" only remains "settled" until the legislatures actually, physically, change the wording of the law that was "settled". Once the actual wording of the law that was "settled" has been changed then there is no "Settled Law" with respect to that changed law.
In short, the court charged with determining what the law means - as the law then stands - can "settle" the meaning of THAT law, but cannot prohibit the legislators from enacting a new law that then does what the old one didn't do (or undoes what the old one did do).
"Settled" DOES NOT mean "for all eternity regardless of what the legislators may later do", it just means "Unless someone changes this - this is what it means under this particular set of circumstances.".
If you are unsure of the actual meaning of technical terms, I'd be happy to assist you in finding out where to look them up.
"Settled Law" only remains "settled" until the legislatures actually, physically, change the wording of the law that was "settled". Once the actual wording of the law that was "settled" has been changed then there is no "Settled Law" with respect to that changed law.
In short, the court charged with determining what the law means - as the law then stands - can "settle" the meaning of THAT law, but cannot prohibit the legislators from enacting a new law that then does what the old one didn't do (or undoes what the old one did do).
"Settled" DOES NOT mean "for all eternity regardless of what the legislators may later do", it just means "Unless someone changes this - this is what it means under this particular set of circumstances.".
If you are unsure of the actual meaning of technical terms, I'd be happy to assist you in finding out where to look them up.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
COL Ted Mc , please do direct me to a site containing the legal definition of "settled law" I have been unable to locate an ACTUAL legal definition in a law dictionary, beyond the anecdotal idea that when one uses such a term, it means they don't wish to make an actual argument.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; As your sources rightly point out "Settled Law is frequently used by those WITHOUT a legal education who do not wish to put forward an actual argument." which is (as the more intelligent of your sources rightly point out NOT what "settled law" actually means in technical terms).
"Settled Law" is that portion of the law that is so well established as to preclude any reasonable (and/or rational) challenges.
For example, it is "settled law" that anyone who is born inside the territorial limits of the United States of America, by the simple fact of where they were born, IS an American citizen.
You would be well served to start your research with the article on "Precedent" in Wikipedia (there are only about fifty first degree cross-references to be followed) rather than simply going to "right-wing" web sites to find comments that agree with what you want reality to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
If you would prefer, I'll use 'stare decisis' rather than "settled law".
"Settled Law" is that portion of the law that is so well established as to preclude any reasonable (and/or rational) challenges.
For example, it is "settled law" that anyone who is born inside the territorial limits of the United States of America, by the simple fact of where they were born, IS an American citizen.
You would be well served to start your research with the article on "Precedent" in Wikipedia (there are only about fifty first degree cross-references to be followed) rather than simply going to "right-wing" web sites to find comments that agree with what you want reality to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
If you would prefer, I'll use 'stare decisis' rather than "settled law".
Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is...
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I am more inclined to start my research with the established law of the land, namely the Constitution. And then, instead of relying on decisions made by politically appointed judges who clearly have an agenda, or by jurors guided by similarly inclined judges, I prefer to follow the good advice of the Classical liberal Thomas Jefferson regarding Construction.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
--Jefferson
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
--Jefferson
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We do not have, nor have we ever had simple birthright citizenship, and the 14 th amendment does not grant it. Please read this, with numerous quotes by the authors, and committee members who wrote the 14 th Amendment for a full understanding of the "citizenship clause" If the Republicans just lost the election as COL Ted Mc's article suggests, it is because of a lack of understanding, or lack of adherence to our Constitution and the 14th amendment. http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the...
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution, apportionment, slavery slaves citizenship vote
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Clearly, a grammatical analysis of the statement would not support such an argument if one makes the argument, as you have suggested, after inserting, moving, or removing commas and such.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
The point is, you don't have to make the argument, and neither do I. The argument was made in 1868, and the years preceding, when the Amendment was consciously and deliberately written, argued, and ratified (as it is). It is not I asking that the Amendment be understood in a manner it was clearly not intended to be understood. I believe the document means what it says, and that the words of those who wrote the document told us exactly what it means, and that it was written in the grammar of the day to confer the meaning they have clearly put forth in their statements regarding the wording. If you wish to continue to believe otherwise, one has to assume there is either an unwillingness to consider the historical context of their clarifications, or there is a separate motive. I do not pretend to know which. Regards Again!
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
For what it's worth, I couldn't agree more regarding the endangered species comment, and our schools which have made it such.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Again https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 - Decided: March 28, 1898
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
As far as the issue is concerned, a reading of the 14th Amendment should put this to bed.
As far as the notion that this "gives away" the election, I would point out that the Democratic front runner is very possibly going to be indicted.
I don't understand why any elected official or candidate kowtows to a population that by definition can't vote... unless they can.
As far as the notion that this "gives away" the election, I would point out that the Democratic front runner is very possibly going to be indicted.
I don't understand why any elected official or candidate kowtows to a population that by definition can't vote... unless they can.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ricardo Marcial
Ellis Island was an idea that served it's purpose at the time, a time before air travel. The US has custom pre clearance stations in Canada and Europe as well as every major port of entry for ship. Our Ellis Islands today are now airport, seaport, and I'm not sure but I would think rail as well. and they are not quarantine area, they are passport stamping stations, the number of people that enter daily would make it impossible to check every single entry in a way that identify those that have entered illegally or without proper documentation. Our immigration staff at embassies and consulates are under staffed, not properly trained, rely on foreign workers to conduct background screening. Then you have the foreign air carriers who just stamp the plane ticket and allow anyone to enter the US on a foreign carrier. Let alone allow a woman who is clearly about to have a child to board a plane.
Like I stated earlier on this topic, our laws are broken, they are unenforceable, they do not protect the immigrant that comes here legally, the do not protect those tasked with enforcing the laws from erroneous lawsuits, over zealous PC inept managers and politicians. We as a nation continue to falter, our political leadership is "combat ineffective" and they will not correct themselves. So it comes down to the voters. But the voters are just are uninformed and God help us, some are foolish enough to follow the ranting of a man who's ideas are not the answer to our problems.
Like I stated earlier on this topic, our laws are broken, they are unenforceable, they do not protect the immigrant that comes here legally, the do not protect those tasked with enforcing the laws from erroneous lawsuits, over zealous PC inept managers and politicians. We as a nation continue to falter, our political leadership is "combat ineffective" and they will not correct themselves. So it comes down to the voters. But the voters are just are uninformed and God help us, some are foolish enough to follow the ranting of a man who's ideas are not the answer to our problems.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc If they indict trump for tax returns, they need to start with sharpton. However, I haven't seen any stories about trump being under investigation for tax evasion, sharpton though... Equal protection, right?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl (Join to see) - Corporal; Taking a look at Mr. Sharpton's tax status might not be a bad idea too.
In fact, it might not be a bad idea to take a look at the tax status of everyone in the United States of America who has a GROSS income over $__[fill in the blank]__. [You can toss in, anyone whose life style makes it appear that they are likely to have a GROSS income over $__[fill in the blank]__ if you like.]
In fact, it might not be a bad idea to take a look at the tax status of everyone in the United States of America who has a GROSS income over $__[fill in the blank]__. [You can toss in, anyone whose life style makes it appear that they are likely to have a GROSS income over $__[fill in the blank]__ if you like.]
(0)
(0)
2
1
1
If Trump is the candidate, they've given away the election. He's the most popular candidate in the GOP, but that still isn't saying that those that oppose him would actually vote for him. If he's the candidate, you're going to see low Republican voter turn out and some GOP nose holding while they vote for a Democrat the first time in their lives.
(2)
(1)
CPO Eugene Gillam
My personal experience is the exact opposite of yours and I have a feeling that your "conservative" friends are just "conservative" enough to spin you up every once in a while and not true conservatives. No true "conservative" would hold their nose and vote for a Democrat...surely you can't believe that a true "conservative" would see Hillary, Biden, Sanders, O'Malley or Warren as a better alternative for president than Trump? When the time comes, they may hold their nose, but it will be to vote for Trump, not a Democrat.
As for the down vote...sorry...didn't know there was a PC code on RP.
As for the down vote...sorry...didn't know there was a PC code on RP.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
CPO Eugene Gillam - I'm not going to play the "true" game because that's a moving target based on the speaker's specific ideological leanings and usually only applies to the fringes of whatever group you're talking about. I would argue that considering where I live and where I'm from, my friends have enough "conservative street cred" to be legit.
It's not about who they think would be better. It's that they think Trump is a bombastic liar and an unprincipled opportunist. Hillary may not be much better, but you know what you're going to get and you know her mouth isn't going to write a check the US can't cash. Its more looking at "how much damage can this person do?" and then voting. A Dem pushing for certain policies is going to do far less damage than a raging narcissist alienating every ally we have while pursuing a blatantly self-serving agenda.
Also, if you include any expectation of decorum, professionalism and social custom in "PC," then yes, we have one. The down vote thing might seem odd, but it's a peculiar product of how we interact with each other and RP's point system. I appreciate the response though, even if the first one was somewhat thread-bare.
It's not about who they think would be better. It's that they think Trump is a bombastic liar and an unprincipled opportunist. Hillary may not be much better, but you know what you're going to get and you know her mouth isn't going to write a check the US can't cash. Its more looking at "how much damage can this person do?" and then voting. A Dem pushing for certain policies is going to do far less damage than a raging narcissist alienating every ally we have while pursuing a blatantly self-serving agenda.
Also, if you include any expectation of decorum, professionalism and social custom in "PC," then yes, we have one. The down vote thing might seem odd, but it's a peculiar product of how we interact with each other and RP's point system. I appreciate the response though, even if the first one was somewhat thread-bare.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I doubt the Republican Party will allow Trump to attain the Nomination of their Party. They have proven they will go to great lengths to prevent one deemed "undesirable" to get their nomination with their last minute rule changes, missing ballots, and other procedural shenanigans they used against Ron Paul in 2012.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
SSG Gerhard S. - While I agree at the Republican national convention in 2012 the party did pull some “shenanigans” with Rep. Ron Paul, however in the interests of democracy Rep. Ron Paul had pulled some shenanigans in getting enough delegates out of primaries that he lost through plays and procedures that people who did not support him did not understand. I say this as somebody who really liked a lot of the things that Rep. Ron Paul had set, but in reality he was fourth-place. I don’t like people changing the rules at the last moment, but I also don’t think it would be appropriate to have the individual who got one fifth the amount of votes of the front runner (Gov. Mitt Romney) become the Republican nominee because he was able to capitalize on the delicate process.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I've always thought citizenship should be based off IQ but that's too easy marginalize huge portions of the population.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Michael that statement was not only in poor taste, but extremely derogatory. Check yourself, sailor!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Them we all have to go back to Europe because we are nation of immigrants the only real american is the american indian is like the funding father new this was the only way to protect the right of the people to be here by adding birthright citizenship The Constitution is master pice you can't take single worth from it all article are design to protect each other the day we make any change to it will no longer by nation of free man.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG (Join to see) Staff; When you say "... the day we make any change to it will no longer by nation of free man. ...", I can only conclude that you do not believe that the United States of America has been a nation of free men since 1795
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt11_user.html#amdt11_hd4
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt11_user.html#amdt11_hd4
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Eleventh Amendment
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google