This morning, the South Carolina Freedom Caucus sent a letter to Governor Henry McMaster, encouraging him to use his authority under state law to reject any federal funding that will be used to provide taxpayer subsidized benefits for illegal immigrants in next year’s budget.
The SAVE Act does the opposite of what you believe. It makes US Citizens of the children of the illegal aliens who breached our borders. Section 1 of the 14h Amendment does NOT make US citizens of anyone who is born on US Soil! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/babies-dont-provide-anchors/
And it imposes significant burdens on American women whose married name is different from the name on their birth certificate.
You must READ and UNDERSTAND legislation before you support it. American Conservatives don't do that - that is why they fall for the dirty tricks over & over again.
While I agree with this interpretation of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the problem is that no one has taken this to court for it to ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court. We need someone (it could be done here in SC) to deny citizenship to an “anchor baby” and if/when they sue it can create precedent. Conversely, a suit could be brought against an adult who was born here as an “anchor baby” and accuse them of illegally obtaining citizenship benefits like SSI or voting registration etc.
The US Supreme Court is not the sole & exclusive Judge of the meaning of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court is merely the "creature" of the Constitution: it was created by Article III, Sec. 1, and is completely subject to the terms of the Constitution.
We have become a people who seek permission from the federal government to have constitutional government! They will NEVER give us constitutional government. Our Framers knew this - that is why they spoke so eloquently of the Right and Power of the CREATORS of the federal government - THE STATES - to smack down their creature when it violated the Constitution which created it.
I don’t disagree with your assessment either but the SCOTUS was approved by the States to be the arbitrator of all things Constitutional. That is the way we have functioned for over 200 years. The last time the States attempted to demonstrate their supremacy over the Constitution we had a Civil War. I would argue (though not because I support slavery) the states who attempted to secede from the USA were well within their rights. We all know how that ended and it seems it silenced the idea that the States have ultimate authority. I’m not sure how we change that accepted interpretation and would love to hear your argument. You seem well versed in Constitutional law and I appreciate your scholarly approach.
What actually happened is this: during the early 1900s, one Charles Evans Hughes (who became a US Supreme Court Justice) said, "Yes, we have a Constitution - it means what the Judges say it means".
That was an absurd lie - but that is what has been taught in the law schools ever since. It's what I was taught in law school some 50 plus years ago. And that is what American lawyers unquestioningly accepted. But I didn't believe it because I saw that since the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was subject to the Constitution - not vice versa.
If you will read my paper on nullification - and the original sources (the actual words of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton) to which I link, you will understand the absurdity of the claim that the constitution means what the judges say it means.
Yes, the States had the right to withdraw from the Union. Everyone understood this at the time of our Framing: See, e.g., from the Convention where the State of Virginia ratified the US Constitution: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … having … investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention … Do in the name … of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions …We … in the name … of the People of Virginia … ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States…” [link] [emphasis added]
Don't let losing a war because one lacks the resources to win it - decide Constitutional Questions! That is what people claim - but it too is false.
Thank you, I will read your paper. I hope it includes what measures we can take to correct this egregious era in our Constitutional understanding of where authority originates and who has ultimate authority. I’m a retired US History teacher and it pains me to think I have always taught that the SCOTUS has ultimate say over matters of Constitutionality.
Well, dear, I used to think that abortion was just fine. But then some Christians sat me down and showed me some things and I got convicted and repented. So if we don't learn, we can't grow!
The basic Principle of nullification is..... DON'T COMPLY with unconstitutional mandates. I need to write more on the specifics - I've covered the specifics in speeches. But here's an illustration of how States nullify an unconstitutional act of Congress: https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/200114
I don't know. Perhaps some of them read it and see what it actually does.
The Democrats in the Senate do see the horrific burdens the SAVE Act puts on women whose married names are different from the names on their Birth Certificate. Kelleigh Nelson (who wrote the article I linked to) describes the hoops she'll have to jump thru to prove she's a US citizen.
Y'all, I support everything you do, but you missed the mark on this issue. You are acting like a doctor that treats the symptoms of the illness instead of the cause. There's no need to worry about the illegals voting (or stealing, raping, killing, etc.) if you keep them out to begin with. They have broken the law by invading our sovereign border. Find them, round them up, then ship them to the Washington swamp. Where's the legislation for that?
Dont yall think we got anuff enemies already now china all hispanic nations now we got to find for ourselves from greed and hope we dont starve in the process the only thing is we don't farm immigrants do and if we kick theme out what then price gauging inflation from the richest man id say so
And, I will take their advice and call my district 112 rep Bustos and my s37 Sen Grooms and my D-1 Fed Rep and my 2 Fed Sens urging them to refuse Fed monies!!!
What the Freedom Caucus advises is to refuse funds with strings. Sadly, corrupt politicians everywhere are happy to take money with strings so long as they get their cut. We should not let corrupt politicians continue as congressman same as we should deport illegals, but that is as unlikely. Let’s start with trying to refuse the Fed money.
The SAVE Act does the opposite of what you believe. It makes US Citizens of the children of the illegal aliens who breached our borders. Section 1 of the 14h Amendment does NOT make US citizens of anyone who is born on US Soil! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/babies-dont-provide-anchors/
The SAVE Acts makes CITIZENS of the children born here of the invaders! https://newswithviews.com/the-diabolical-save-act-puts-americans-in-chains/
And it imposes significant burdens on American women whose married name is different from the name on their birth certificate.
You must READ and UNDERSTAND legislation before you support it. American Conservatives don't do that - that is why they fall for the dirty tricks over & over again.
While I agree with this interpretation of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the problem is that no one has taken this to court for it to ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court. We need someone (it could be done here in SC) to deny citizenship to an “anchor baby” and if/when they sue it can create precedent. Conversely, a suit could be brought against an adult who was born here as an “anchor baby” and accuse them of illegally obtaining citizenship benefits like SSI or voting registration etc.
The US Supreme Court is not the sole & exclusive Judge of the meaning of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court is merely the "creature" of the Constitution: it was created by Article III, Sec. 1, and is completely subject to the terms of the Constitution.
It is the States (who created the federal government - including the Supreme Court- when they ratified the US Constitution) who are the final authority on the meaning of that document. Those are not my words - those are the words of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison & Alexander Hamilton https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense-1.pdf
We have become a people who seek permission from the federal government to have constitutional government! They will NEVER give us constitutional government. Our Framers knew this - that is why they spoke so eloquently of the Right and Power of the CREATORS of the federal government - THE STATES - to smack down their creature when it violated the Constitution which created it.
I don’t disagree with your assessment either but the SCOTUS was approved by the States to be the arbitrator of all things Constitutional. That is the way we have functioned for over 200 years. The last time the States attempted to demonstrate their supremacy over the Constitution we had a Civil War. I would argue (though not because I support slavery) the states who attempted to secede from the USA were well within their rights. We all know how that ended and it seems it silenced the idea that the States have ultimate authority. I’m not sure how we change that accepted interpretation and would love to hear your argument. You seem well versed in Constitutional law and I appreciate your scholarly approach.
What actually happened is this: during the early 1900s, one Charles Evans Hughes (who became a US Supreme Court Justice) said, "Yes, we have a Constitution - it means what the Judges say it means".
That was an absurd lie - but that is what has been taught in the law schools ever since. It's what I was taught in law school some 50 plus years ago. And that is what American lawyers unquestioningly accepted. But I didn't believe it because I saw that since the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was subject to the Constitution - not vice versa.
If you will read my paper on nullification - and the original sources (the actual words of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton) to which I link, you will understand the absurdity of the claim that the constitution means what the judges say it means.
Yes, the States had the right to withdraw from the Union. Everyone understood this at the time of our Framing: See, e.g., from the Convention where the State of Virginia ratified the US Constitution: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … having … investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention … Do in the name … of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions …We … in the name … of the People of Virginia … ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States…” [link] [emphasis added]
Don't let losing a war because one lacks the resources to win it - decide Constitutional Questions! That is what people claim - but it too is false.
Thank you, I will read your paper. I hope it includes what measures we can take to correct this egregious era in our Constitutional understanding of where authority originates and who has ultimate authority. I’m a retired US History teacher and it pains me to think I have always taught that the SCOTUS has ultimate say over matters of Constitutionality.
Well, dear, I used to think that abortion was just fine. But then some Christians sat me down and showed me some things and I got convicted and repented. So if we don't learn, we can't grow!
The basic Principle of nullification is..... DON'T COMPLY with unconstitutional mandates. I need to write more on the specifics - I've covered the specifics in speeches. But here's an illustration of how States nullify an unconstitutional act of Congress: https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/200114
It's simple!
Again, SC be first
Why does Senate GOP vote no
I don't know. Perhaps some of them read it and see what it actually does.
The Democrats in the Senate do see the horrific burdens the SAVE Act puts on women whose married names are different from the names on their Birth Certificate. Kelleigh Nelson (who wrote the article I linked to) describes the hoops she'll have to jump thru to prove she's a US citizen.
Y'all, I support everything you do, but you missed the mark on this issue. You are acting like a doctor that treats the symptoms of the illness instead of the cause. There's no need to worry about the illegals voting (or stealing, raping, killing, etc.) if you keep them out to begin with. They have broken the law by invading our sovereign border. Find them, round them up, then ship them to the Washington swamp. Where's the legislation for that?
Dont yall think we got anuff enemies already now china all hispanic nations now we got to find for ourselves from greed and hope we dont starve in the process the only thing is we don't farm immigrants do and if we kick theme out what then price gauging inflation from the richest man id say so
And, I will take their advice and call my district 112 rep Bustos and my s37 Sen Grooms and my D-1 Fed Rep and my 2 Fed Sens urging them to refuse Fed monies!!!
What the Freedom Caucus advises is to refuse funds with strings. Sadly, corrupt politicians everywhere are happy to take money with strings so long as they get their cut. We should not let corrupt politicians continue as congressman same as we should deport illegals, but that is as unlikely. Let’s start with trying to refuse the Fed money.
Did April Cromer’s company removed all of their illegal workers?
https://www.palmettotruthproject.org/open-border-april-cromer