Trump says the 14th amendment was for children of slaves not illegal immigrants

Samori Toure

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
20,487
Reputation
6,365
Daps
101,643
The words slave or slavery do not appear in the constitution. Their are many laws that depend on the 14th amendment, from privacy laws, interracial marriage and abortion.

It's the same playbook again, over and over and over again. They go after the same rights over and over and over again. But now they're hiding behind our weak links and it's working.
They are clearly referring to the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.
 

JT-Money

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
11,704
Reputation
3,880
Daps
50,869
Reppin
NULL
v-Tceu-Hn-Rsg-ZPb-Yq-Eb2.webp
 

Uachet

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
5,588
Reputation
4,353
Daps
32,588
Reppin
Black Self-Sufficiency
This is a bit of history on the 14th amendment as pertains to how it was made to repudiate the Dredd Scott case ruling by the Supreme Court.

Amdt14.S1.1.1 Historical Background on Citizenship Clause​

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case,1 however, Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) White persons born in the United States as descendants of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body, the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been born outside the dominions of the United States, had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein.2 Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.

The Court further held that, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. Even a free man descended from a former slave residing as a free man in one of the states at the date of ratification of the Constitution was held ineligible for citizenship.3 Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 14 of the Civil Rights Act of 18665 and then in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.6

Amdt14.S1.1.1 Historical Background on Citizenship Clause

So while he is not wrong about the original purpose, the Amendment was made loose enough to expand beyond that purpose and be used for all who are born here on US soil. So in the grand scheme of things, his assertion about the original purpose does not matter. Well that is unless the present Supreme Court gets a hair up their behind and decide to interpret it more closely to what it was originally intended to rectify, removing over a hundred and fifty years of settled cases. Something, I think they would be loathed to do.
 
Last edited:
Top