Obviously, an explanation is in order, because the ignorance
and doltery regarding the 14th Amendment is out in force . .
Let’s imagine a happy family. You’re the Mom and you have among your children Sally, a precocious little 10-year-old with a remarkable degree of independence. One day you discover that Sally has taken on an unusual project – washing the laundry of three of her friends as well as her own. When you ask for an explanation, you learn that Sally and her friends have determined that it’s gross to wear a shirt or a pair of jeans more than once without washing. The trouble, in their way of thinking, is the fact that you and the other parents require at least two wears for a shirt and three for jeans with exceptions for spills and other minor disasters.
Let’s imagine a happy family. You’re the Mom and you have among your children Sally, a precocious little 10-year-old with a remarkable degree of independence. One day you discover that Sally has taken on an unusual project – washing the laundry of three of her friends as well as her own. When you ask for an explanation, you learn that Sally and her friends have determined that it’s gross to wear a shirt or a pair of jeans more than once without washing. The trouble, in their way of thinking, is the fact that you and the other parents require at least two wears for a shirt and three for jeans with exceptions for spills and other minor disasters.
Now then, Sally hasn’t done anything malicious, she wasn’t trying to hide what she was doing – you just didn’t notice for a while and she really figured she was helping by taking on part of your workload, because in her mind you have been trying to reduce the time you spend on laundry. You know kids . .
So you explain to her that while she had a kind heart, the extra usage on the machines would mean they wouldn’t last as long. You and Dad would have to spend more money than normal on laundry equipment, and that would mean they had less to take care of their first priorities – her and her siblings. “So please, honey,” you say, “let’s just use our washer and drier for our laundry, okay?”
To this, Sally smiles and says “Okay, Mom.”
3 years have now gone by and Sally has turned into your typical sullen teenager who gives the impression that she would prefer patting a bobcat on the backside with handful of gumballs than help with the laundry or anything else. You know kids . .
One day you come home and tell Sally that you have friends in the neighborhood who have experienced a small house fire. No one was hurt, and there was no major damage, but their washer and dryer were ruined. You and three other families have offered to handle their laundry while repairs are made and the machinery replaced. You point to a basket of laundry and ask Sally to please begin a load of wash. With this, Sally gets a flat-eyed look of extreme annoyance and indignation and says, “You said we were only supposed to use our washer and dryer for our stuff.”
Now, being a responsible and stable parent, you successfully resist the urge to slap Sally’s face to the middle of 2016, and calmly state that you both know that this situation is entirely different. Sally then stomps around and gets the load started.
So what’s the point here? Very simple – rules and laws have intent, and when they are perverted to justify something that has nothing to do with their intent, such rules and laws are void and of no effect.
This is an elementary truth, and should present no mental, philosophical, or
social challenge to anyone functioning on anything more than a 10-year-old
level of cognizance.
In one of his more recent acts of stupidity and treason, the
man who calls himself Barack Obama has arrogated to himself the power to act as
the determiner of immigration law in a clear violation of his oath. This is hardly a surprise – presidents do it
all the time, although this particular vermin has raised the bar considerably.
In the process of trying to justify his action, it was inevitable that the
usual parade of sycophants would trot out the 14th Amendment as part
of the argument, expecting those of us who can actually think to fall for the
malarkey that it establishes citizenship for anyone and everyone based merely
on being born in the country. The idea
of actually investigating the amendment and any Supreme Court cases that deal
with it would never occur to these blunderers because it would require thinking
as well as present the very real possibility that they would learn facts that
prove their position wrong, throwing their precious emotional fantasies into
chaos.
So then, what was the intent of the 14th Amendment? We can be certain that it had nothing to do with immigration law, because in 1868 there was no such thing as immigration law. In recognizing this fact, there remains no intellectually honest reason to bring up the 14th Amendment when the issue is immigration.
Period.So then, what was the intent of the 14th Amendment? We can be certain that it had nothing to do with immigration law, because in 1868 there was no such thing as immigration law. In recognizing this fact, there remains no intellectually honest reason to bring up the 14th Amendment when the issue is immigration.
To find out the intent of the law, and to be sure that we are not applying it in a treacherous, dishonest way that voids its meaning, let’s hear what the authors of the amendment had to say about it. Rather than essentially re-write the easily verified and childishly simple information to be found, I’ll simply link to it link to it here.
