Obama Shows His Ignorance of the Constitution

B. Hussein Obama is running for the presidency against a well oiled political machine that will do and say anything to destroy opponents. Hillary Clinton has hammered Obama on his experience and he has fought back with the promise of change. Unfortunately for Obama, he has looked inexperienced in foreign policy and now he has made a statement, while pandering to immigrants, that shows he has little knowledge of the Constitution. Here is what he said:

He outlined his position on immigration, essentially the same as the bill that passed the Senate and died in the House last year that would beef up border security while providing avenues for existing illegal immigrants to get legal.

But, he said, “I’m not going to change the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution says if you’re born here, you’re a citizen.” LV Review Journal

The Constitution says no such thing and I would think someone who is a lawmaker in this country would know that. The 14th Amendment was written to exclude those who were not subjects of this country (either citizens or emancipated slaves). The authors of the Amendment specifically stated that people born to illegals would not be citizens. A footnote to a Supreme Court Ruling has been used to pervert the Amendment so that people are rewarded for ILLEGAL behavior.

It does not matter how the Amendment has been applied the fact is our Constitution does not say if you were born here you are a citizen. Any time B. Hussein Obama would like to debate that issue all he has to do is let me know. He should do it after he has won or been eliminated from the primary process.

If Hussein Obama lacks knowledge of our Constitution in this regard it is a good bet that he thinks it says other things that it does not. Liberals already misinterpret the 2nd Amendment and they have bastardized the First especially with regard to religion. We cannot afford to have a President who bestows Constitutional protections upon those who are not so entitled.

It is a good thing for Obama that Hillary Clinton is also pandering to ILLEGALS or she would eat him alive with his ignorance. It also does not hurt that much attention has been focused on the Clinton’s racism.

It is amazing how many lawyers and lawmakers do not know the Constitution. Is it any wonder they continually violate it? How can they swear to uphold something they are obviously unfamiliar with?



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

22 Responses to “Obama Shows His Ignorance of the Constitution”

  1. poetrychic says:

    interesting, that diamondbigdog would not bother to read the constitution prior to making such an asinine statement, and i quote (directly from the constitution itself): Amendment XIV Section 1. 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 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.

    so, obama says, “I’m not going to change the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution says if you’re born here, you’re a citizen.” and interestingly enough, the *very first line of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the united states says: “all persons *born*…in the united states…are *citizens* of the united states…” and dimondbigdog thinks it’s obama who is showing ignorance of the constitution…LOL

  2. Big Dog says:

    Poetry Chic
    I read it. The key phrase is AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. That means subjects of the country which is, a citizen or emancipated slave. You don’t have to believe me though. Look up the author of the amendment and see what he meant for it to be. Open your mind and LEARN.

    The interesting thing is that you were too ignorant to read the qualifier. The Constitution does not say people born here are citizens. It says AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. You and Obama missed that.

    Perhaps you should both go back to school.

  3. poetrychic says:

    the qualifier was there to include slaves, and now it includes inhabitants of puerto rico, the u.s. virgin islands, guam, american samoa, and various other islands as they are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF…but it doesn’t dismiss the *fact* that if you are born here, you are a citizen, period, end of discussion! obama didn’t misrepresent the constitution; perhaps it is you who have such a problem with him that you feel the need to make nothing into something?

    and i looked up the author, as you suggested, from historicaldocuments.com:
    The major provision of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to All persons born or naturalized in the United States, thereby granting citizenship to former slaves. Another equally important provision was the statement that nor shall any state deprive any person of live, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the Federal and state governments. On June 16, 1866, the House Joint Resolution proposing the 14th amendment to the was submitted to the states. On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.
    Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, the primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, intended that the amendment also nationalize the Federal Bill of Rights by making it binding upon the states.

    i also looked up bingham’s biography, and his initial purpose for the 14th amendment was for the first 8 amendments of the bill of rights to be applied to the states.

    your assertion: “It does not matter how the Amendment has been applied the fact is our Constitution does not say if you were born here you are a citizen.” and that is a bold faced lie, spin it how you feel you must in order to carry on this charade, but the bottom line is that you’re wrong!

  4. Big Dog says:

    There is no lie, the Constitution does not say if you were born here you are a citizen. The Amendment had several parts we are strictly speaking about the citizenship clause.

    Maybe this will help you:
    Allegiance is the key word. Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, “Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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, but will include every other class of persons.”

    ILLEGALS are foreigners and aliens and are subjects of other countries…

    As far as spinning, do as you wish but the First part of the 14th was, as enumerated by its author and co author, never intended to give citizenship to anyone born here. The jurisdiction qualifier is just that so saying that it reads if you were born here you are a citizen is WRONG.

    What it says is if you are born here and you are a subject of this country then you are a citizen.

    End of story. You and Obama are incorrect

  5. poetrychic says:

    ok, whatever you say…we’ll just let anyone who might accidentally stumble upon this like i did judge for themselves

    sheesh, no wonder we are in the state of affairs we are in…

  6. Big Dog says:

    That is the typical response from a liberal who is presented with irrefutable facts. How much more do you need than the words of the people who wrote the damned thing? Well, speak up and let me know how much more you need because that is obviously not good enough for you and the other twits who either refuse to read history or refuse to believe history. So let me do this for you, here is more on the subject. It is a scholarly discussion of the Amendment about the people who wrote it and what they said, not your or my opinion:

    These scholars therefore presume that “subject to the jurisdiction” means something different from “born in the United States,” so they have looked to the original Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment to determine its meaning. They conclude that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on U.S. soil.

    The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” Sen. Howard said that “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, but will include every other class of persons.”

    Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, who was the only Democrat to participate in the Senate debate, was even more explicit about the meaning of the jurisdiction requirement: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power — for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before — shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Sen. Johnson’s reading of the jurisdiction requirement also is consistent with our naturalization requirements. Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required.

    Here is the link so you can read it yourself.

    I understand it is difficult for you but the fact remains that there was an intent by the people who wrote it and you and Obama are not on the side as that intent.

    I am not the reason our country is in trouble. It is in trouble because graduates of the public school system are not able to comprehend what is written and what people mean when they describe exactly what they did and why they did it.

    The other problem is that people like you who are enamored with Obama refuse to think that he can make a mistake even though he consorts with racists and anti Semites and praises them.

    Now, if you are capable of finding anything where the words of these men did not mean what I asserted and showed they said, feel free to produce it.

    An answer like Ok whatever is not academically appropriate and only shows the lack of ability from the left.

    The ball is in your court.

    BTW, anyone who happens by this will see references and links to the authors. They will read what was said and meant. Then they will conclude you are wrong.

  7. Big Dog says:

    You might also try these:
    The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:

    1.

    The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
    2. The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))
    3.

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
    4.

    There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))
    5.

    The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

    Found here

  8. Big Dog says:

    You can also read this from Stanford Law and Policy Review

    I would hope Stanford Law would be good enough for you.

  9. Cao says:

    Liberals don’t care about facts. Now communists – marxists – like the Obama type, don’t salute the flag, and believe the borders should be wide open.

    He is a constitutional lawyer, but he acts like he doesn’t know the constitution – and the reason for that is – Progressives have a ‘vision’ for the constitution in 2020–and it will not look anything like the constitution of our founding fathers.

  10. Ogre says:

    Big Dog, you have to understand the liberals and the Constitution. They wear these certain glasses — sometimes contact lenses — that only see certain words and not other words in the Constitution. These glasses allow them to read the Constitution as they see fit — on that particular day. In fact, wearing these glasses actually allows the words of the document to change on different days!

    But have fun banging your head against the wall with this one. :)

  11. Raven says:

    Heh. Liberals twist anything and everything to their own advantage…illegals take jobs away from Americans but we don’t hear libs whining about THAT…yet…

    Whats their advantage today is their end-doing tomorrow…

    Anyway I was TAUGHT in Grade school the correct meaning of this Amendment. Since we know educations been dumbed down…perhaps this is why we’re seeing so much ignorance on this.

  12. GM says:

    “Subject” That kind of says it all, regardless of what
    “poetrychic” says. I love it when people are so busy arguing out of their ass, they forget to engage their brains.

    The 14th has commonly been used to establish citizenship, but that doesn’t mean that it, as a matter of LAW, does what poetrychic says it does.

  13. Robert says:

    LMAO, Man I haven’t seen an asswhooping like that in a long time, well done BD.
    Unfortunately libs like the one you just smacked on the nose with a newspaper won’t listen. They continuously distort facts and reason to advance their version of socialism that they THINK would be good for us.

    Be careful though BD, talking bad about Barack Hussein Obama will get you branded a racist.
    The only candidate you can talk about is white and male oh and a Republican….Sarcasm..

  14. Cao says:

    is poetrychic meatbrain?

  15. Big Dog says:

    I don’t know. Wouldn’t surprise me.

  16. jonolan says:

    As much as I hate to type this, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, 1st sentence reads: 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.

    That could easily be interpreted to say that legal status of the parents doesn’t matter. In point of fact, the US Supreme Court hasn’t rendered an explicit ruling on this ever. In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda and Plyler v. Doe.

  17. Big Dog says:

    Jonolan,
    In the cases you cited the SCOTUS ruled that since the parents were here legally they were subject to the jurisdiction of the state and were in fact citizens. There is no debate about interpretation when we read what the authors wrote. It is specific and excludes aliens and other non citizens.

    We use to deny citizenship to those who were born to aliens but that changed and not due to a ruling but due to a footnote in a case.

    The fact is, the original intent of the Amendment was to deny birthright citizenship to those born of aliens and other non citizens. This is indisputable when the authors words are taken into account. We cannot just change things without using the proper legal means to change the Constitution.

    Congress should, at a minimum, write a law to clarify this and it will be settled.

    The inportant words are subject to the jurisdiction thereof and what those words mean are clearly explained by the guys who wrote it.

    Imagine if we took the First Amendment and ignored what the founders wrote about it and said free speech was only legal on Tuesday. It would violate what the thing means and it would be wrong.

    All one needs do is read what the guys who wrote it said that it meant. Pretty simple really.

  18. Gribbit says:

    Big Dog,

    Just a little suggestion. There is a plugin called WP-Ban, works good, I utilize it often. Imbeciles like your troll would not have lasted past the 2nd non-linked, topic ignorant comment. But then again, I’m an A-Hole and I love it. :D

  19. Pat says:

    The mere fact that Obama says HE “is not going to change the Constitution [of the U.S.] shows that he lived too long under the dictatorship of Suharto where a dictator by whim can do whatever he wants to do.

    As a Constitutional law professor, Obama knows, or should know, he is not at liberty to change the Constitution to suit his whim, or his desire.

    He should also know, if aware of America’s nationalism, that this is a primary problem of Americans right now with President George Bush – that he also believes too well in the Unitary Executive theory of the Presidency that presumes dictatorship powers, not presidential powers.

    For all of the impeachment problems the Clinton’s went through, never did Bill Clinton, presume the Unitary Executive approach to alter the Constitution from its original intent.

    Just a difference in the perspective of Constitutional law professors, or something more?

    Someone should be asking.

  20. Jonathan says:

    Big Dog, you’ve got it wrong on almost all counts.

    Plyler v. Doe does NOT have to do with cases of alien parents who are in the country legally.

    Furthermore:

    “Use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State’s civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.”

    Plyler v. Doe (1982)

    And moreover:

    “[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual — as well as unjust — way of deterring the parent.”

    Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

    It’s also ungenuine of you to cite from the Slaughterhouse cases, as those have been overturned, incorporating the 14th Amendment against the States.

    All that being said, as a sovereign nation the U.S has every right to close its borders, as well as the right to create and enforce an immigration policy that is beneficial to it.

    Illegal immigration IS harmful to our society, and every just and lawful means to end or at least mitigate it should be taken. But exempting the children born within the United States is not one of these: they are citizens. The proper direction to take is to prevent those births.

  21. Big Dog says:

    Jonathan,
    Not wrong on any of it. The courts used the meaning of subject to jurisdiction to mean in that territory so they are subject to laws. The authors of the amendment meant subject as in a subject of the US.

    The SCOTUS never interpreted the Amendment with regard to birth here. The Amendment’s authors never intended for there to be birth right citizenship. They made it clear in their writings that those born to illegals were NOT citizens. The SCOTUS just needs to read the writings of the authors in order to interpret what is meant.

    The same is true with the Second Amendment and now they finally have…

  22. […] policy goes against the constitution. His universal health plan goes against the constitution This link (Ignoring the “Hussein” part, I think that whole middle name schpeal was bullsh*t.) also shows a […]