Greetings folks from New York City. I arrived yesterday to attend the Third Annual London Center for Policy Research American Liberty Award Dinner. The London Center is named after my dear mentor and friend Herb London. I am stoked because I’ll finally get to meet someone for whom I have immense respect and admiration — Ayaan Hirsi Ali — along with many others. Also, this morning I got to do one of my favorite things in the world, run Central Park. But that’s not the reason I’m writing.Some of you have read my constitutional analysis on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection under the Law clause, which was used by the Supreme Court to determine same-sex marriage must be accepted by all states. Funny thing, I thought the SCOTUS existed to interpret the law, not make it?
Well, in my previous article, I asserted that if the SCOTUS could make up a new constitutional right — same-sex marriage — and “demand” it be the “law of the land,” how about the Second Amendment, a standing individual right since our Constitution, the rule of law, was ratified. Should not the Second Amendment be the law of the land across all States?
Don’t gun owners have equal protection under the law? I am just waiting for that lawsuit to come up and let’s see what happens in the courts, because someone with a CWL or CCL (Concealed Weapons License/Concealed Carry License) in one state will travel to another and be arrested for unlawful carry — and folks, based on what the SCOTUS determined in the same-sex marriage case, that would no longer be Constitutional.
Hey, I didn’t need a law degree or a black robe to figure that one out — nor did I need those wrappings to assess the following either.Saturday morning is my long run, and when home in Dallas I take off from our home in Woodbridge and head over towards Richland College and back.14th Amendment was used to free slaves, look what liberals are using it for now…This past Saturday I had a very interesting deliberation with myself about the topic of illegal immigration, namely this whole issue about “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.
Once again, it is the 14th Amendment used by those in support of this case. And just so y’all know, here is the 14th Amendment, as presented by the Library of Congress:
The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” including slaves recently freed – which was the main purpose of the amendment.
“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of 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 under the law.”
Again, I find it interesting that the 14th Amendment states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens of the United States” yet it seems we have many States and municipalities t making and enforcing laws that are contradictory to the Constitution, the rights and privileges of American citizens — namely the Second Amendment. But what I want y’all to consider is how can it be that rights are granted under the rule of law, when the impetus behind the case in question is a BREAKING of the rule of law?Let me explain. How can we in America determine that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens when the act of an illegal immigrant violates our sovereign law to begin with?
Let’s be honest, my ancestors didn’t come to America illegally. They were legally brought here under the horrendous premise of slavery. Blacks – slaves – didn’t illegally cross the border to enter the United States.
And when these United States of America realized — President Abraham Lincoln specifically — that America couldn’t live it up its principles while embracing the concept of slavery, he took legislative action. The result of the legislative action was the 13th Amendment, Section 1, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
In other words, the 13th Amendment eradicated slavery in the United States — Lincoln had by executive order (a good one), issued his Emancipation Proclamation which “freed the slaves” but held little or no sway in the slave states — hence the necessity of victory for the Civil War.
So with that understanding, the 14th Amendment was necessary to ensure that the freed slaves were citizens of the United States and had equal protection under the law. Today, these folks with all the high-powered degrees have so bastardized the 14th Amendment that it is now used to validate same-sex marriage and illegal immigration. But consider this: how can a woman violating the laws of our nation by entering the country illegally, then have her progeny granted rights under the rule of law? Simply put folks, this does not make any doggone sense, and truly that dawg should not hunt!
The case that many cite to uphold the “anchor baby” issue is that of a Chinese worker who was brought to the United States, legally, to work on the railroad system – but those workers did not enter illegally. And therefore, it is correct that their progeny born in the United States, similar to the case with newly freed slaves, were entitled to US citizenship.
What we are in essence saying by using the 14th Amendment to justify “birthright citizenship” for illegal immigrants is behavior which violates our law is rewarded. That folks is Pavlovian — meaning you will get more of that bad behavior. And so it is women continue to enter America illegally to have children, get welfare benefits, and anchor themselves here.
What also incenses me is how the lobby for same-sex marriage and illegal immigration rush to say this is the “new” civil rights issue and make these insidious comparisons to the struggles of the black community in America — and the faux black leaders chime in. My parents, Buck and Snooks, were American citizens who honored the rule of law, and when they were born in 1920 and 1931 respectively, they were denied many rights — and yep, that was because of Democrat Party policies.
Stop using the 14th Amendment as a catch all for the inane liberal agenda to undermine the principles and values of the United States. The 14th Amendment was established for an honorable cause to ensure the words of Thomas Jefferson did indeed ring true — that all men are created equal and should not be denied life, liberty, and property because of their skin color. I do find it ironic that the Party which stood against the 13th and 14th Amendments then, is the same Party attempting to leverage it for their political purposes — the Democrat Party.
This is all about common sense — truly an uncommon virtue in American these days. Illegal actions should not result in legal reward. Coming here illegally should not result in a “birthright citizenship”…because if we don’t realize it, one of the greatest rewards on earth is to be an American.