Top 10 liberal lies about the Constitution
For any true blue American who drinks Bald Eagle tears and pisses Freedom, the Constitution of the United States is one the most important pieces of paper in history. For liberals, it’s a punch line. For the rest of America, It is the foundation on which the country was built, thrived and became the superpower it is today. Therefore, it'd be logical to assume that the people of the US have, at the very least, actually READ the damned thing, right? Not liberals… that’s for sure.
Sadly, judging by the number of misconceptions people have about the Constitution, the answer seems to be a "No." Did YOU know the following:
The Examiner writes:
10) The14th Amendmentgrants citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when they are born inside the United States.
The text of the 14th Amendment 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.”
Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning:
"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."
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. And as I have noted before, this was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
All the evidence shows that liberals simply invented this phony right out of thin air and forced it into effect without any basis whatsoever, in open defiance of what was intended.
9) State nullificationand interposition measures won't work and are not valid.
Numerous laws have been successfully nullified over the years by states simply ignoring and defying illegal federal attacks on their rights, ranging from the REAL ID Act of 2005 (which is still on the books, but no longer enforced after two dozen states refused to acknowledge it), to the Firearm Freedom Act (passed in nine states, introduced in dozens of others, which halts the enforcement of illegal federal gun laws), to the medical marijuana laws that now exist in twenty-three states despite the ongoing federal ban on the drug.
The Federal Government was never intended to be the sole determiner of the size and scope of its own power. And the right of states and citizens to resist unconstitutional laws (as opposed to politely begging lawless tyrants to change their minds) has always been intended as a natural check against federal encroachments.
Liberals erroneously insist that the Founders never actually endorsed the use of such measures. But Thomas Jefferson enthusiastically advocated nullification as the "rightful remedy" to lawless federal tyranny in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799. And the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, called state interposition our solemn 'duty' when faced with such abuses in the Virginia Resolution of 1798.
Furthermore, nullification and state interposition were used early in our history to defeat various unconstitutional policies, ranging from the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Andrew Jackson's protectionist tariffs (as well as the resulting 'Force Bill'). The Founders considered it both our right and responsibility to rise up and "alter and abolish" government that becomes adversarial to our rights and interests, as they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
Even the New England states and politicians who condemned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions for disputing the authority of the Federal Government to enact their speech-trampling "sedition" laws later made references to those very resolutions to resist and nullify other federal abuses. These ranged from a crippling trade embargo against belligerent European powers in 1807, to a bill for military conscription after the War of 1812, to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
And such bold acts of defiance against relentless federal power grabs do still occur to this day, as we saw with last year's controversial but successful standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.
The Supreme Court has struck down various nullification attempts, most notably in 1958, stating, "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it." But this ignores the obvious fact that refusing to comply with unconstitutional (i.e., invalid) laws is defending the Constitution, not violating it.
As Alexander Hamilton put it (Federalist 78):
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Liberals insist that state interposition and nullification are unconstitutional, as if the same Founders who tirelessly evaded government taxation and who violently seceded from Britain would have ever sided with (incorrect) legal technicality over our God-given right to self-rule ('When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty'). But this ignores the reality that the Constitution and the Federal Government only exist as grants of power from The People.
We don't need express permission from the Constitution to reject the legitimacy of unconstitutional federal laws. Unconstitutional laws are automatically invalid. All governmental legitimacy comes from The People. We don't getour permission to do things from the Constitution. It is an expression of our will. The Federal Government gets itspermission to do things from the Constitution (i.e., from us). And when it tramples the document that authorizes its very existence, it renders itself illegitimate.