… the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone:
– Supreme Court opinion in the slaughterhouse cases (1873):
“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
– Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879):
“[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot.”
– Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880):
“The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted … to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States.”
– Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson):
“The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color.”
– Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884):
“The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States. … The evident meaning of (the words, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized. …”
One has to leap forward 200 years from “the founding of the republic” to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982. …
Approximately two minutes and one second into the latest Kelly File broadcast, you can watch Megyn Kelly pull a rude face when Ann Coulter—allowed briefly on the hallowed show—speaks about Univision anchor Jorge Ramos as an “ethnic activist,” not a reporter, and attempts to enlighten Kelly about the real costs to Americans of illegal immigrants streaming over the border with Mexico.
UPDATE (8/27): Kelly never “side-eyed” Jorge Ramos. She kinda nodded her noggin at him; gave him a sympathetic, I-feel-your-pain look.
It is a mistake to interpret Ann Coulter’s use of the Biblical Joseph’s story—at the Donald Trump rally in Iowa, Tuesday—as an allegory for Mitt Romney’s political suffering. No, no , no! Ms. Coulter is talking quite clearly and metaphorically about long-suffering America under the lying Demopublican “regimists,” when she says,
“He had to be sold into slavery, imprisoned, betrayed, so that eventually he could save the Jews. Maybe Mitt Romney had to lose. And maybe we had to give Republicans one more chance in 2014.
“And maybe [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and [House Speaker] John Boehner had to betray us once again to pave the way for President Donald Trump.
“God hasn’t given up on America yet.”
“He” is everyday America.
Chelsea Schilling of WND reports on a win-win situation:
Conservative firebrand and bestselling author Ann Coulter joined Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa Tuesday – and she delivered an epic smackdown of “speech Nazis” who ridiculed the GOP frontrunner for using the term “anchor baby.”
I’ve been following Judge Andrew Napolitano long enough to know he is a Reason-type, left-libertarian, who supports Civil Wrongs legislation, even coming down occasionally against the most basic of liberties: absolute freedom of association and the rights of private property.
Therefore, I like not only that Ann Coulter is finally naming names, but that she has offered a serious corrective to the Judge’s ideologically skewed facts, in “Fox News anchored in stupidity on 14th Amendment”
… Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst … at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War – and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to – I quote – “make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”
Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who – as you may have surmised by his name – was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.
The “main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment,” the court explained – and not for the first or last time – “was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black … should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.
Of course it’s easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”
Yeah, Trump’s the idiot. Or as Bream said to Napolitano after his completely insane analysis, “I feel smarter just having been in your presence.”
Incidentally, it is true that since “Adios!” Ann Coulter can do no wrong. That she has recovered recently and magnificently does not mean that you should forget her years of neoconism, lauding the lovely Bush wars (she called them magnificent), ignoring immigration, and being wrong on most things. I didn’t read her column for years (except on court cases and feminism) until now. I bought only “Treason,” which is a good book. The rest of her books are witty riffs on the theme, “Liberals this; liberals that,” seldom considering that Repubs are liberals too. Coulter was useless for a decade. To forget what neoconism has wrought is unforgivable.
However, adorable Ann is fast making up for past sins.
Conservative-minded writers are known to cavil about the asinine worship of youth in this country—a thing that makes for a silly society. But why make older, still-lovely looking ladies feel ashamed for maintaining their good looks?
Miss Ann is herself a curious piece of work. She is in her mid-fifties, but on her book jackets looks like a hot babe of twenty-two. Achieving this must require enough makeup to fill a peanut-butter sandwich, and I suspect that she has worked a couple of copies of Photoshop into smoking ruins. Do we have here a narcissistic attention-freak? A reporter might be a better idea. …
Sure, we’d all give a lot to look like we did when younger. But why diss those women who age well (in this scribe’s case, because of genetics and Guinot). My own old face has not had a scratch of work done to it and is holding up quite well. Ann might have had a few minor fixes (fillers and/or an eyelid job), but you can’t fake that glorious hair and the generally good bone structure; it holds it all up.
Love you, Fred, but lay off Ann’s looks.
Please Sean Hannity, it is not often that you entertain a guest who knows her subject. But when you do, please let the odd, knowledgeable guest get a word in edgeways. Even the most retarded of your viewers is, by now, familiar with your own quick-fix program for America, repeated ad nauseam on radio and TV. So there is no point in shouting these bullet points again and again, over each guest who makes a feeble attempt at speaking on the Hannity Show.
Seriously, you don’t understand the nuances of centrally planned, mass immigration. When she is allowed on Fox New, let Ann Coulter explain to you that even if good people flow across the border with no end insight, Other, Unseen, Better people must work to support the first horde of uneducated, welfare-dependent cuties. Please Sean Hannity, stop talking, for once! You used to be humbler about your lackluster knowledge.
There is nothing worse than straining to glean important information drowned in the din you make about your plan for America: the one penny plan, school vouchers (as opposed to free-market education), medical savings accounts (as opposed to free-market health care), conquests abroad, yada, yada, yada.
Today, Sean Hannity, your lineup (Trump and Coulter) was far and away better than Megyn Kelly’s. She is fast succumbing to the vulgar female instinct to show-off, bare too much, flirt, wink, talk, too, over her guests, and kvetch excessively. Make a point of not emulating Kelly or Bill O’Reilly.