Natural Born Citizen for Dummies

Life At Conception Act Introduced By Senator Rand Paul

Senator and CPAC straw poll winner Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the “Life at Conception Act” on Thursday afternoon.

He then went to Twitter and tweeted the following: According to Senator Paul, S 583 “does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.


From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:


“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”

The substance of the bill reads,

“To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”

It also goes on to define the terms “human person” and “human being” as “each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” Yes, it sounds silly that we actually have to go about defining what is meant by these terms, but it is a result of the corruption of our society and devolving into not thinking that the child that grows within the womb is not a human, but merely a blob of tissue.

CONTINUED:  http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/life-at-conception-act-introduced-by-senator-rand-paul/#ixzz2OCG0UfTS

AMERICAN MINUTE: 14th Amemdment

July 28


The 14th Amendment was adopted JULY 28, 1868, because southern States, though forced to end slavery by the 13th Amendment, did not grant citizenship to freed slaves.

Southern Democrat Legislatures passed Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws, requiring freed slaves to be "apprenticed" to "employers" and punished any who left.

Illinois Republican Congressman John Farnsworth said March 31, 1871:   "The reason for the adoption [of the 14th Amendment]...was because of...discriminating...legislation of those States...by which they were punishing one class of men under different laws from another class."

Republican John Bingham of Ohio, who introduced the 14th Amendment, said:  "I repel the suggestion...that the Amendment will...take away from any State any right that belongs to it."

Yet after the Amendment was ratified, activist Federal Judges, applying evolution to the legal process, did just that, as Thomas Jefferson had forewarned Charles Hammond in 1821:  "The germ of dissolution of our...government is in...the federal judiciary...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow...until all shall be usurped from the States."

The 14th Amendment soon became a door by which Federal Courts took authority over trade disputes, union strikes, and eventually religion, away from States' jurisdiction.

In his Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, Justice Joseph Story explained the pre-14th Amendment view of "separation of church and state" was to limit the Federal Government:  "In some of the States, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in other, Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers...

The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions."

When North Carolina was considering ratifying the U.S. Convention, Governor Samuel Johnston argued, July 30, 1788:   "The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians...In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much; the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In Virginia, there are many sects...


I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established."

John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1889) stated in its definition of "Religion":  "The Christian religion is, of course, recognized by the government, yet...the preservation of religious liberty is left to the States."

On March 4, 1805, in his Second Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson stated:  "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.  I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies."


On January 23, 1808, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller:  "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [10th Amendment].

Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government. It must then rest with the States as far as it can be in any human authority...


I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines...


Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets."

Justice Joseph Story continued in his Commentaries:  "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution...the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.

Any attempt to level all religions, and make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, in not universal indignation."

http://www.americanminute.com/index.php?date=07-28

More Democrats Call on Obama to Ignore Congress on Debt, Invoke 14th Amendment

House Democrats said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should invoke a little-known constitutional provision to prevent the nation from going into default if Congress fails to come up with a plan to raise the debt ceiling.


Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Democratic leadership, said he told fellow Democrats that Obama should both veto any House GOP plan for a short-term extension of the debt ceiling and invoke the 14th amendment, which says that the validity of the nation’s public debt “shall not be questioned.”
CONTINUED:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/democrats-call-on-obama-to-ignore-congress-on-debt-invoke-14th-amendment/

EARLY VOTING IN NC HAS BEGUN!

North Carolina Elections News

(Note:  While this sounds like a common sense YES, be aware that this could be abused very easily, and be used to eliminate someone who has made mistakes and repented, or been cleared at a later time.  Also, a sitting Sheriff, could certainly "make a situation" for a rival challenger.)

North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State

PRESS RELEASE

September 2, 2010

Elaine F. Marshall
For Immediate Release Secretary of State

Contact: Liz Proctor (919) 807-2154

Constitutional Amendment on November Ballot

Raleigh – When North Carolina voters go to the polls on November 2, they will find more than

candidates’ names on their ballots. They also will be voting on a constitutional amendment that could affect the names on future ballots.

The 2010 General Assembly approved a measure (Session Law 2010-49) that would ban convicted felons from serving as sheriffs in North Carolina.

The proposed amendment to Article VII, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution would add language stating that individuals convicted of a felony in North Carolina or any other state would be ineligible to serve as a sheriff in North Carolina whether or not his or her rights of citizenship have been restored.

The General Assembly also approved the language that voters will see on the ballot this fall as they consider this constitutional amendment:

[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST

Constitutional amendment providing that no person convicted of a felony may serve as Sheriff.

The Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission, chaired by Secretary of State Elaine F.

Marshall, has approved language for an official explanation of the proposed amendment that can be provided to voters to assist them in understanding the amendment.

Secretary Marshall urges voters to take time to consider the amendment.

“The Constitution of North Carolina belongs to the people of North Carolina. As with every proposed constitutional amendment, the voters have an important opportunity here to carefully consider this proposed change and cast their ballots according to the facts and to their personal beliefs.”

Here is the official explanation adopted by the Commission:

The North Carolina Constitution says that voters must elect a county Sheriff. It does not say who is eligible to serve as county Sheriff.

The proposed Amendment to the Constitution says who is not eligible to serve as a county Sheriff. The Amendment says that convicted felons are not eligible to serve as county Sheriff.

A convicted felon is someone who has been found guilty or who has pled guilty to a serious crime called a felony. A felony is a crime that may lead to imprisonment. A person convicted of a felony may lose certain rights. For example, a person who is convicted of a felony may lose the right to vote, the right to carry a firearm, and other privileges.

If the majority of voters vote “FOR” for the Amendment, a convicted felon will not be eligible to be a County Sheriff in North Carolina.

If the majority of voters vote “AGAINST” the Amendment, a convicted felon will be eligible to be a County Sheriff in North Carolina.

This explanation was provided to each North Carolina county board of elections. For copies, people may contact their county board of elections, the North Carolina Secretary of State’s Office, or visit the Secretary of State’s Office online at www.sosnc.com.

-30-

www.sosnc.com

P.O. Box 29622, Raleigh, NC 27626-0622

NEWSMAX: Report Questions Citizenship for ‘Anchor Babies’

Report Questions Citizenship for ‘Anchor Babies’



The issue of “anchor babies” — children who automatically become citizens upon their birth to illegal aliens in the United States — has become a hot topic as their numbers continue to soar.

But nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose “birthright citizenship,” according to a Rasmussen poll, and some lawmakers are calling for legislation to end it.

House Minority Leader John Boehner says that a revision of the 14th Amendment — which forms the basis for birthright citizenship — is “worth considering.” And legal scholars including Yale Law School Prof. Peter Schuck and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner question whether the amendment does in fact confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has released an in-depth report on birthright citizenship that includes these disclosures:

Each year, 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies are born in the United States and automatically recognized as American citizens.

Only 30 of the world’s 194 nations confer automatic citizenship on children born to illegal aliens, and just two of them are advanced economies — the United States and Canada.

No European country has birthright citizenship.

Over the past few decades, a number of countries have repealed birthright citizenship provisions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, India, Ireland, and New Zealand.

The number of U.S.-born children with illegal alien parents soared from 2.3 million in 2003 to at least 4 million in 2008. Between 2001 and 2009, such births surpassed 542,000 in Texas alone.

The Supreme Court has ruled that children born in the U.S. to permanent resident aliens are citizens, but has never decided if the rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence is illegal or temporary.

Due to birthright citizenship, the undocumented immigrant families of anchor babies can qualify for welfare benefits they would otherwise not be entitled to receive.

Also, a child born into those families has the ability “when he grows up, to legalize his parents, and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings,” according to CIS Legal Policy Analyst Jon Feere.

“The sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn, sponsor their own foreign-born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain.”

The child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens thus forms an anchor for the legal immigration of a number of relatives — hence the term “anchor baby.”

The anchor baby phenomenon has led to the growth of “birth tourism” — pregnant women traveling to the United States to give birth on American soil.

Feere points out: “Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S. Constitution? On its face, the answer is ‘no.’

“The 14th Amendment confers citizenship through naturalization or by birth to persons ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

“One might say the practice has become policy without becoming law.”

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, and its Citizenship Clause was intended to ensure that freed slaves would be recognized as U.S. citizens.

“There is simply no direct evidence that Congress wished to confer citizenship on the children of temporary or illegal visitors, but there is some evidence that they did not,” Feere observes.

Sen. Jacob Howard, a Michigan Republican who debated a resolution that would become the Citizenship Clause, limited citizenship by birth by stating in 1866: “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.”

Feere also notes that an illegal alien is, under law, a citizen of a foreign country and therefore subject to that nation’s jurisdiction, and the authors of the Citizenship Clause intended that “jurisdiction as to the child would be imputed from the status of the parents.”

He maintains, then, that a child born in America to illegal aliens is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore is not entitled to citizenship.

John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, said in a media conference in August that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the American military or tried for treason against the United States.

Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a U.S. passport, even if born on American soil, according to Eastman’s statements reported by the Christian Science Monitor.

Furthermore, Eastman said, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee.

Therefore, CIS report author Feere concludes, “Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.”

To that end, last year Nathan Deal, then a Georgia Republican in the House, introduced legislation — which has nearly 100 co-sponsors — that would limit birthright citizenship to persons born in the United States to at least one parent who is either a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident alien, or an alien performing active duty in the armed forces.

http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKCDYbea7J2RmCM5AbUzwFW16xlfbJRAZ