Anchor babies are NOT constitutional
- a slam dunk!

It appears that our federal courts have reinterpreted the “Citizenship Clause” of the 14th Amendment and the effect of these decisions should be reversed.

Amendments to the Constitution, Article XIV, Section 1., states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (Emphasis added)

In the 1866 Senate ratification debate, the Citizenship Clause’s proponent, Jacob Howard of Michigan, said:

“… that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States. … This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,[or] aliens, …” (emphasis added)

Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a key drafter of the 14th Amendment, explained the jurisdiction requirement:

“… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

See: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_27/article.html

The first ruling of the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment was in: IN SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

The court ruled:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.’”

The original intent of the 1868 Congress couldn’t be any clearer and was clearly understood by the Supreme Court in its first ruling four years later.

If the courts reinterpret the original intent of the lawgiver – Congress – or set public policy, also the responsibility of Congress, they violate the first sentence of our U. S. Constitution Article I, Section 1:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Hamilton in Federalist 81, p. 327 of The Federalist Papers in Modern Language* states:

Legislature Changing Supreme Court's Ruling

“Secondly, the future legislature of the United States will be able to overrule objectionable decisions just as the Parliament of Great Britain and the legislatures of the States do…

“The theory authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act…”

See Clause 7 of Federalist 81 by Hamilton in The Federalist Papers.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 81

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed81.htm

Hamilton also said in Federalist 81, p. 328 *

Legislature can Impeach Judges

“Lastly, the danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority has been often mentioned. It is in reality a phantom.” …

“This is inferred from the general! nature of the judicial power, …from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.”

“This conclusion is greatly fortified by the important constitutional check on the judiciary - that one part of the legislative body can impeach judges and the other, try them.” (Sadly, congress has forgotten this responsibility.)

In Federalist 65, p 266*, Hamilton said:

“… regard the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative ...” (emphasis added)

Justice Joseph Story, was appointed to the U. S. Supreme Court by President James Madison (1811-45); considered the founder of Harvard Law School and its Professor of Law (1829-45); and his contributions to American law have caused him to be called, … the "Father of American Jurisprudence." Story said:

“The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are … political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests… unconstitutional opinions … attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power”

Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilders, pg. 14

Our courts are now ruling that any child born in the United States of parents from a foreign country, whether they are here legally or illegally, are automatically citizens of the US. Nothing could be further from the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Legislation should be passed clarifying the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against children born in our country, of parents not subject to our jurisdiction, automatically being citizens of the United States.

This legislation should make it clear that if judges continue to rule contrary to the intent of our Constitution, and the amendments to it, in effect legislating rather than judging and thus violating the first sentence of the Constitution; that that act will be considered to violate their office under “good Behaviour” and will subject them to impeachment and removal from office. This would be legislation similar to HR 1070 and S 520, The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.

Please see Article II, Section 4, Article III, Section 1, and Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

For comments or questions, please contact Richard Gruetter at:

constitution1776@bellsouth.net

*Federalist Papers in Modern Language, Edited by Mary E. Webster