Watching this in May 2023 as we’re staring at a Debt Ceiling crisis. Invoking the 14th Amendment was one option on the table. To anyone in the future reading this, I hope all pans out, but as of now we have no idea what’s going to happen.
In Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, you seem to have glossed over something. Seemingly, being born in the US would automatically make one a US citizen, conveniently ignoring the fact the it clearly states "being subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You mentioned native Americans not getting citizenship this way, presumably because they would be born on Indian lands (reservation) and not "in the US". However, offspring of foreign diplomats aren't automatic US citizens similarly, but because their parents are not subject to jurisdiction of US laws. Fast forward, illegal aliens born in the US, don't (or shouldn't) get automatic US citizenship, because their parents are still subjects of the laws of the original country. Yes, they aren't diplomats with immunity to US laws, but they aren't automatically subjects to all but immigration laws.
@@donaldrayprine5153 Really? I have never heard of the offspring of diplomat becoming citizens of the host country. As far as Native Americans goes, yes, but that was a separate act of Congress following World War 1.
Subject to the jurisdiction refers to a person born with allegiance to a nation. It has nothing to do with obeying laws. A "Natural Born citizen" is someone that is born with full and complete allegiance to a nation. If both parents are U.S. citizens then you are Natural Born, If one parent is a citizen, then you are a naturalized citizen. This is the original intent of the clause , and the one we are Constitutional required to follow, even though our government tends to ignore it .
@@Jbickley00 How and why, is that a "good thing"? Let's have a cadre of North Koreans come in and raise an army of citizens as soldiers to wipe out America? Good idea. NOT!
RN to BSN and watching your videos for a required Government class. At first I hated the idea of this dry old stuff but the last 4 years have taught me I really should know the constitution so much better than I was never taught 50 years ago. So, thank you for making this so palatable and interesting.
Mr. Hughes, amazing! Your energy level is fantastic! I have always been a student of math and science until recently I have wanted to go back and revisit history. Your videos are a fantastic journey into history indeed. Thank you so very much for posting these videos, and thank you for contributing to the most important job in the world, teaching. Thank You!
Here's a question in short it basically says you can't make a law for one person that doesn't apply to all.. so how does that work take you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt but school buses don't have them public transportation doesn't . Even the police that write the ticket don't have e to wear them . So that is an example of making laws that only apply to certain people
The advertisement said firming cream? I'm 64 years old now, and I am NOT WRINKLED,because I drank my apple juice everyday for 30 years, like I'm supposed to. My face and neck are so firm, and SO TIGHT, they can't get any tighter.
So I'm crazy on the Internet. Okay, I'm fine with that, as long as I have access to your videos. Could you make videos about the differences between US politicla system and others?
So thank you for posting this video, I’m not a young person anymore, I’m not currently enrolled in any courses covering the constitution & so I am wondering do you think the 14th amendment is applicable when cops shoot unarmed people & then they use something called qualified immunity to basically inoculate themselves from prosecution! I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about that & again thank you for posting video!😎
It largely depends on the circumstances the police officer is faced with. An officer in Ohio saved a young woman's life by shooting Ma'khia Bryant, who was in the process of stabbing someone. If however, the police officer is found to have acted criminally then they face a trial and could very well spend the remainder of their life behind bars.
@@oliverduke1173 Touché! So with all due respect, I wasn’t talking about armed people, and I understand your point, but we know the majority of the people whose cases end up in the news, never end up in court, and when they do it is likely that this particular SCOTUS decision of qualified immunity is used broadly as a common defense, and we also know that the subjects in these cases were not carrying firearms, and were not pointing a firearm at the police, in fact a lot of these cases involving situations so egregious that the subjects weren’t just walking away, they were running away out fear of the police! So this isn’t about a cliché, it’s about life, and death, and whether or not the rule of law has any real meaning or standing in the general scheme of things, and as we all should know that life is a lot more dangerous when people have lost faith with those entrusted with their safety, e.g. the cases of 12 year old Tamia Rice, and Breonna Taylor remains prominent in my mind as to just how messed up things are in this country where judges are likely to rule in favor of qualified immunity even in cases where the facts show otherwise, and because of the prejudicial nature of such a decision, it makes an appeal unlikely to result in a reversal. Comphrende!
Most of the rights in the Bill of rights have been applied to the States via the 14th Amendment. Here is an interesting fact, the Supreme Court has refused to except poor people as a class that needs to be protected under the 14th Amendment. That is why the race card has to be used all the time, or that is why the race card is used all the time by the Democrats. Title 42 U.S.C section 1983 does not state that the action have to be racially motivated to violate the rights of the people secured by the Constitution and Laws, nor does the 14th Amendment use the word race, Yet, the Court refuses to change its view that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on wealth or the lack of wealth.
@@sosa7k169 it is not funny, it is a fact. the race card came from the Democrats objecting to the ratification of the 14th amendment on the grounds that it would give blacks the same rights as whites. read the congressional globe and learn what they the Democrats say while in office.
Keith Hughes needs to watch the 14th Amendment as explained by the Institute for Justice. The 14th Amendment was needed because in the early 1830s, the Tanney Supreme Court opined in Baron v. Baltimore (courts opine. Tyrants issue rulings because they rule) that Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution because the US Constitution does NOT apply to the states & gives no power to the US Federal gov't to force the states (or counties or cities or other political subdivisions) to protect the rights, privileges or immunities of the people/citizens of the USA. The Dred Scott is connected but the problem was that the scumbag Tanney Supreme Court's ruling in Baron v Baltimore that gutted the US Constitution.
I would say I am closer to you then you think although I am sure my paradigm is static in some western context. I appreciate your honesty and intellect and look forward to your future comments.
Can anyone point me to a passage explaining the rights of parents under constitutional rights? Currently dealing with a case where an abducted child has been in foster care and the foster agency failed to notify me in a reasonable amount of time. They took over 15 months which is as far as i can see a breach of a fathers rights.
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment says, “…neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
@@firefire7529 The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Among several key omissions, owing, I presume, to the need for brevity, two stand out: mention of Barron v. Baltimore, which restricted the application of the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government; and the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the Supreme Court actually first addressed the scope and validity of the Fourteenth Amendment and provided the legal precedent on which Cruikshank would rely.
Good news is is I do have videos of them. The hard part is deciding how deep to dive Knowing that the majority of my students are just trying to wrap their heads around the idea. I do appreciate the comment. If you go to my channel page you will see a link to my video index
I was hoping that this explanation of the 14th Amendment would at least expand on the argument over whether or not children born to illegal immigrants should be protected by this amendment.
They are not US Citizens because they are not born under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. they can be summoned back to their homelands and conscripted into military service. They have recourse to the embassy of their home country for the redress of grievances. According to the authors of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction" means the complete jurisdiction. The first act of an illegal alien/AKA "invader" entering our Republic is an affront to our Laws which they willfully break by entering our country illegally: a clear declaration that they are NOT subject to our laws.
What's the question. I sort of take a clear and present danger outlook. Anything is fine unless it causes an evident danger to another human. I also think that websites also have the right to regulate your speech; it's their space; so if Twitter or FB wants to regulate "hate speech" thats sort of within there right b/c you opted in to their business. But someones personal website? As long as it doesnt present a clear and present danger, I say let your freak flag fly.
In another video title of yours, you said ... "I know nothing." Hmm ... So does that also includes videos such as this one? Do you - or do you NOT - comprehend the 14th amendment?
LGBT people aren't even supposed to be a separate people. They are supposed to be members of the same community of people with their own personal liberties.
I though they decided corporations had freedom of speech and that comes from the corporate citizenship interpretation of the fourteenth. Money = freedom of speech was also an interesting interpretation of the first amendment too.
+Max Windley Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! GNOME, not Noam. I couldn't figure that out without your help. lol...thanks for providing clarity to us confused youtubers.
I wish you would have had time to explain the proper meaning of the second half of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which is known in law as "INCLUSIVE CLAUSE", AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, since mere birth is and was not enough, otherwise it would have been left out.
first clause, you forgot to mention the qualifying factor within and that is, ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....". Illegal immigrants, ambassadors, migrant workers or visitors who have children here; neither the child nor the parent are citizens.
Your not going to like this but I tend to avoid the big questions as a facilitator of learning experiences. In order to be able to have ears, I need to be seen as fair. I do know its hard to be neutral on a moving train (Zinn) but I try. I would say the current paradigm of capitalism leads much to be desired. I am also against corporate personhood outright and thing that people need education in socialism as well as capitalism, negatives and positives. I lean on peeps like you to advocate.
The fourteenth amendment is an important one to discuss and you did a great class on it. However, I would like to point out how entities use this to make foreign citizens who bear a child within our borders an American citizen. In no way, should that child be considered a citizen and no other country in the world do that. For instance, when soldiers are deployed to a foreign country, such as Japan or Germany, their children are still American citizens. One of the prominant writers of the Fourteenth Amendment addressed this point. So a very important action to do is to find out the intentions of the writers. That is the procedure of the Supreme Court to find out precedence. You did mention how the Supreme Court sometimes messes, like the Dred Scott decision.
Watched this because I am homeschooling my soon-to-be-13 year old daughter. We are going over the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Watching this in May 2023 as we’re staring at a Debt Ceiling crisis. Invoking the 14th Amendment was one option on the table. To anyone in the future reading this, I hope all pans out, but as of now we have no idea what’s going to happen.
Checking in. 5 hrs later. No change in the “news” as of now. 😁
Interesting how I "randomly" came onto this video. Pure coincedence for sure.
There is a tentative deal, now it has to be voted upon in the house and Senate, then signed as well
1 report was it was a 2 year deal
The 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling. Are there still Democrat slave owners trying to get reimbursed for Republicans freeing their slaves?
In Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, you seem to have glossed over something. Seemingly, being born in the US would automatically make one a US citizen, conveniently ignoring the fact the it clearly states "being subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You mentioned native Americans not getting citizenship this way, presumably because they would be born on Indian lands (reservation) and not "in the US". However, offspring of foreign diplomats aren't automatic US citizens similarly, but because their parents are not subject to jurisdiction of US laws. Fast forward, illegal aliens born in the US, don't (or shouldn't) get automatic US citizenship, because their parents are still subjects of the laws of the original country. Yes, they aren't diplomats with immunity to US laws, but they aren't automatically subjects to all but immigration laws.
There is a provision for Native Americans, and Diplomats as well
@@donaldrayprine5153 Really? I have never heard of the offspring of diplomat becoming citizens of the host country.
As far as Native Americans goes, yes, but that was a separate act of Congress following World War 1.
Subject to the jurisdiction refers to a person born with allegiance to a nation. It has nothing to do with obeying laws. A "Natural Born citizen" is someone that is born with full and complete allegiance to a nation. If both parents are U.S. citizens then you are Natural Born, If one parent is a citizen, then you are a naturalized citizen. This is the original intent of the clause , and the one we are Constitutional required to follow, even though our government tends to ignore it .
If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. This is different than most other countries and that’s a good thing.
@@Jbickley00 How and why, is that a "good thing"? Let's have a cadre of North Koreans come in and raise an army of citizens as soldiers to wipe out America? Good idea. NOT!
RN to BSN and watching your videos for a required Government class. At first I hated the idea of this dry old stuff but the last 4 years have taught me I really should know the constitution so much better than I was never taught 50 years ago. So, thank you for making this so palatable and interesting.
Thank you so much for making this accessible. I feel more prepared for my public policy class today!
You're awesome. These videos are a huge help. Thank you!
Studying for my police academy, trying not to ignorantly violate rights.
Jesus, man. Good luck to you. Things are NOT cop friendly these days. And I commend you for putting in the work.
@@povljr Thank you!
The department will urge you to violate rights
Don't worry you'll figure it out the day you graduate you'll become just like the rest of the scum bag police
We need good police officers! Good luck to you.
I meant through my vids, lol. but you can always tweet me! or better yet, go to HipHughes History on FB!
Sounds like a great topic for a lecture on Federalism, I'll put it on the DJ list. Thanks!
You help so much with my constitutional law class; very easy, simple and basic breakdowns.
Good video. Thanks for recording this!
Thanks for this video! I just ordered some Hip Hughes merch.
Mr. Hughes, amazing! Your energy level is fantastic! I have always been a student of math and science until recently I have wanted to go back and revisit history. Your videos are a fantastic journey into history indeed. Thank you so very much for posting these videos, and thank you for contributing to the most important job in the world, teaching. Thank You!
I love your videos you are helping get through my American government college course I LOVE YOU THANK YOU! lol
Awesome! I am glad you found them and they found you.
Hi Mr. Hughes do you have any hints to better understand the State Action Doctrine?
Here's a question in short it basically says you can't make a law for one person that doesn't apply to all.. so how does that work take you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt but school buses don't have them public transportation doesn't . Even the police that write the ticket don't have e to wear them . So that is an example of making laws that only apply to certain people
Is the fourteenth amendment also used for corporate personhood and thus contributing to the Citizen United decision?
Wish I hadn't wasted so much time yesterday watching Dr. Phil and baby kittens sleeping vids yesterday when I could have been watching yours.
hip, what science teachers do you recommend?
The advertisement said firming cream? I'm 64 years old now, and I am NOT WRINKLED,because I drank my apple juice everyday for 30 years, like I'm supposed to. My face and neck are so firm, and SO TIGHT, they can't get any tighter.
Tight !
Love the house of learning! New subscriber.
So I'm crazy on the Internet. Okay, I'm fine with that, as long as I have access to your videos. Could you make videos about the differences between US politicla system and others?
Question, who and what party where the SC Justices put into /on the fort by? Back in 1886 or what ever date you said
Why did you skip section 4?
@Ned Bazinga Got THAT Right!!!
The canceling of the Confederate Debt was very significant.
this guy went on a rant and forgot i guess...
hey great video🥃 could you do one on " the battle of Athens " .. thank you
So thank you for posting this video, I’m not a young person anymore, I’m not currently enrolled in any courses covering the constitution & so I am wondering do you think the 14th amendment is applicable when cops shoot unarmed people & then they use something called qualified immunity to basically inoculate themselves from prosecution! I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about that & again thank you for posting video!😎
It largely depends on the circumstances the police officer is faced with. An officer in Ohio saved a young woman's life by shooting Ma'khia Bryant, who was in the process of stabbing someone. If however, the police officer is found to have acted criminally then they face a trial and could very well spend the remainder of their life behind bars.
cops should not shoot armed people either. please don't use this cliche
@@oliverduke1173 Touché! So with all due respect, I wasn’t talking about armed people, and I understand your point, but we know the majority of the people whose cases end up in the news, never end up in court, and when they do it is likely that this particular SCOTUS decision of qualified immunity is used broadly as a common defense, and we also know that the subjects in these cases were not carrying firearms, and were not pointing a firearm at the police, in fact a lot of these cases involving situations so egregious that the subjects weren’t just walking away, they were running away out fear of the police! So this isn’t about a cliché, it’s about life, and death, and whether or not the rule of law has any real meaning or standing in the general scheme of things, and as we all should know that life is a lot more dangerous when people have lost faith with those entrusted with their safety, e.g. the cases of 12 year old Tamia Rice, and Breonna Taylor remains prominent in my mind as to just how messed up things are in this country where judges are likely to rule in favor of qualified immunity even in cases where the facts show otherwise, and because of the prejudicial nature of such a decision, it makes an appeal unlikely to result in a reversal. Comphrende!
can you do a video on the incorporation of rights through the 14th amendment ?
Most of the rights in the Bill of rights have been applied to the States via the 14th Amendment. Here is an interesting fact, the Supreme Court has refused to except poor people as a class that needs to be protected under the 14th Amendment. That is why the race card has to be used all the time, or that is why the race card is used all the time by the Democrats. Title 42 U.S.C section 1983 does not state that the action have to be racially motivated to violate the rights of the people secured by the Constitution and Laws, nor does the 14th Amendment use the word race, Yet, the Court refuses to change its view that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on wealth or the lack of wealth.
@@johnhumphrey9953 Appreciate the knowledge, that’s funny.
@@sosa7k169 it is not funny, it is a fact. the race card came from the Democrats objecting to the ratification of the 14th amendment on the grounds that it would give blacks the same rights as whites. read the congressional globe and learn what they the Democrats say while in office.
@@johnhumphrey9953 I was agreeing with you. Have a good one and thanks 🙏🏾
I was thinking along the same lines; the incorporation clause.
Keith Hughes needs to watch the 14th Amendment as explained by the Institute for Justice. The 14th Amendment was needed because in the early 1830s, the Tanney Supreme Court opined in Baron v. Baltimore (courts opine. Tyrants issue rulings because they rule) that Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution because the US Constitution does NOT apply to the states & gives no power to the US Federal gov't to force the states (or counties or cities or other political subdivisions) to protect the rights, privileges or immunities of the people/citizens of the USA. The Dred Scott is connected but the problem was that the scumbag Tanney Supreme Court's ruling in Baron v Baltimore that gutted the US Constitution.
I would say I am closer to you then you think although I am sure my paradigm is static in some western context. I appreciate your honesty and intellect and look forward to your future comments.
Does anyone know what comment Hip was responding to?
Can anyone point me to a passage explaining the rights of parents under constitutional rights?
Currently dealing with a case where an abducted child has been in foster care and the foster agency failed to notify me in a reasonable amount of time. They took over 15 months which is as far as i can see a breach of a fathers rights.
I thought I was. I'll tell you what Ill meet you on my homepage any time you are free.
What about section 4 of the 14th Amendment? Completely skipped that part!
Great videos, though!
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment says, “…neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
Basically, The USA is not responsible for confederate war debts.
@@firefire7529 and sanctuary cities
@@firefire7529 The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Thank You For The Information Of History Rock On 🇺🇸🤘🏻👨🏼🎓
thanks!!! Iuse your videos for my French students, it's cristal clear!!!!
Merci! Merci!
How is state income tax legal? They are taking property without due process or just compinsation
@@YahwehhasgivenaservanttoHis 1040 INCOME TAX IS PAID TO QUEEN OF ENGLAND, NOT THE U.S.
Great video Thanks
Cheers from England.
Question...How can the 14th be invoked in a lawsuit against a state by one of its' citizens if the eleventh protects them?
Among several key omissions, owing, I presume, to the need for brevity, two stand out: mention of Barron v. Baltimore, which restricted the application of the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government; and the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the Supreme Court actually first addressed the scope and validity of the Fourteenth Amendment and provided the legal precedent on which Cruikshank would rely.
Good news is is I do have videos of them. The hard part is deciding how deep to dive Knowing that the majority of my students are just trying to wrap their heads around the idea. I do appreciate the comment. If you go to my channel page you will see a link to my video index
Having a Debat with my sister do state have to follow constitutional law yes or no
Yes. Constitutional law is THE law. See supremacy clause and this amendment (no state shall deny...)
7:06 STOP YELLING AT ME!!!😭
Huge fan! Mad props. :-)
+Amanda Magdalena thanks Amanda for the wonderful comment! You best be subbed and be sure to spread the virtual word
I teach U.S. History and my kids love you!
7:01 R.I.P Headphone users.
I know right.
your awesome dude and you remind me of squid from the show rocket power
I bet $50 he records in his shorts or underwear 😂
Do you think congress will use section 4 to remove the members that helped the insurrection on Jan 6, 2021?
I was hoping that this explanation of the 14th Amendment would at least expand on the argument over whether or not children born to illegal immigrants should be protected by this amendment.
I don’t know why you would need that explanation when the answer is clearly said
They are not US Citizens because they are not born under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. they can be summoned back to their homelands and conscripted into military service. They have recourse to the embassy of their home country for the redress of grievances.
According to the authors of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction" means the complete jurisdiction. The first act of an illegal alien/AKA "invader" entering our Republic is an affront to our Laws which they willfully break by entering our country illegally: a clear declaration that they are NOT subject to our laws.
What is the message associated with the hair? What do you tell the batter? “Here try these mushrooms, they are good on pizzas”.
Hey Hughes, can you do a video on why government is involved in marriage?
My question is what is the “due process”
Thanks! Love ya!
this was uploaded 9 minutes ago, the walking dead ended 10 minutes. Awesome timing indeed.
this comment is ancient
What does subject to jurisdiction mean
It means all the places that the United States claims to own
How about vs mistresses does this apply too?
off the subjet but what is your answer to internet and freedom of speech? thank you
What's the question. I sort of take a clear and present danger outlook. Anything is fine unless it causes an evident danger to another human. I also think that websites also have the right to regulate your speech; it's their space; so if Twitter or FB wants to regulate "hate speech" thats sort of within there right b/c you opted in to their business. But someones personal website? As long as it doesnt present a clear and present danger, I say let your freak flag fly.
Keith Hughes Hi! What if someone is born on a British flag cruise ship in international waters?
In another video title of yours, you said ... "I know nothing."
Hmm ...
So does that also includes videos such as this one?
Do you - or do you NOT - comprehend the 14th amendment?
Your audio needs some TLC. When I find myself constantly adjusting the volume, it doesn't endear me to the video's sound editor, or lack thereof.
Always enlightened
You and Tom Arnold are twins I swear
😂😂😂
broooo i was studying at 2 am and that 3:43 sound effect scared the crap outta me
What if someone is born on a cruise ship carrying a British flag in international waters.?
No physical address can’t fish or hunt or buy a gun ! 2 - 4 -14 Amendments?
like that was a coincidence.
Age 38
2014
Enterprise
Down the 14th path, freedom?
Since 8 years old?
Even the gnome in the back ground prefers half & half in coffee no sugar
In reference to map versus Ohio., the 11th amendment states that you can't sue the state that you reside in.
Mapp was 29 years old= not older woman. She was young when arrested.
Why no comment on debt ceiling clause in the 14th amendment?
LGBT people aren't even supposed to be a separate people. They are supposed to be members of the same community of people with their own personal liberties.
400yrs of slavery led to Civil war and civil right movement.
Those are two separate genres. Dr. Phil does not sleep with baby kittens. Sigh, the internet: This is how rumors get started.
I though they decided corporations had freedom of speech and that comes from the corporate citizenship interpretation of the fourteenth. Money = freedom of speech was also an interesting interpretation of the first amendment too.
"...racist children..."? What the heck!
These videos are awesome, love gnome chomsky I get the joke =)
+Max Windley Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! GNOME, not Noam. I couldn't figure that out without your help. lol...thanks for providing clarity to us confused youtubers.
Trollhunters made it mainstream.
LEGAL, Education, Medical, etc🤣
So how is the 14 Ammendiment going to help the Dept Ceiling. Sounds like Jabberwocky
Skip to 0:45
I am not an American but I have to watch this movie for assignment.
I just declared myself a US national
I get mistaken for being African American but I'm native american could this be possible for many other african americans?
I wish you would have had time to explain the proper meaning of the second half of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which is known in law as "INCLUSIVE CLAUSE", AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, since mere birth is and was not enough, otherwise it would have been left out.
Born or Naturalized...... AND Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof
is this when we became citizens instead of we the people
The only aspect of the video I found irritating was the repetition of 'nevertheless'- otherwise it was perfect!
Came here wondering what naturalized means
So, it has nothing to do with raising the debt limit?
Biden needs to use this now
first clause, you forgot to mention the qualifying factor within and that is, ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....". Illegal immigrants, ambassadors, migrant workers or visitors who have children here; neither the child nor the parent are citizens.
+PacificCircle1 I love you too
MrDerrik770 What does that mean. I'm not up on White supremacist jargon. Oh, I get it YOU SICK RAT -
(think of that every time you watch football)
Troll la la loll la loll la loll loll lolll
The 14th is part of the Constitution. How the F..k can it be unconstitutional? Got meds?
+PacificCircle1 huh? Who?
I renamed it just for you!
This is music to my ears
*Aren't you the guy who hosted "Who's line is it anyway"? Pretty random to see you on youtube explaining The 14th Amendment. But thanks*
Crazy with the cheese whiz
"The racist children" haha
Woah. Not on purpose. Sorry about that. Please send me the audiologist bill.
love this
Birth (Person) + U.S (Corporation) = U.S. Citizen (Personal Property Of the Corporation)
+Governor Wildstar CZcams + Comments = Cray Cray Conspiracies.
The rEVOLution needs YOU!!! Join the Peoples Party Coalition TODAY! Google #PPC4Freedom
I am crazy on the internet and stuck in a political wormhole on CZcams LOL
watch the gnome at 1:50
Your not going to like this but I tend to avoid the big questions as a facilitator of learning experiences. In order to be able to have ears, I need to be seen as fair. I do know its hard to be neutral on a moving train (Zinn) but I try. I would say the current paradigm of capitalism leads much to be desired. I am also against corporate personhood outright and thing that people need education in socialism as well as capitalism, negatives and positives. I lean on peeps like you to advocate.
I totally agree about personhood for corporations needs to be removed.
I’m watching after watching Childish Gambino “This is America”
The fourteenth amendment is an important one to discuss and you did a great class on it. However, I would like to point out how entities use this to make foreign citizens who bear a child within our borders an American citizen. In no way, should that child be considered a citizen and no other country in the world do that. For instance, when soldiers are deployed to a foreign country, such as Japan or Germany, their children are still American citizens. One of the prominant writers of the Fourteenth Amendment addressed this point. So a very important action to do is to find out the intentions of the writers. That is the procedure of the Supreme Court to find out precedence. You did mention how the Supreme Court sometimes messes, like the Dred Scott decision.
Does the 14A help me with the 2A? Why is it not a problem to bear arms in some states and impossible in others? Looks like the 14A is not working.