Fox analyst slams Republicans for forgetting their ‘oath to uphold the Constitution.’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Today, Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed Republicans trying to change the 14th amendment to end birthright citizenship. When asked about the effort to change the amendment, Napolitano derided it as "nothing but political chatter." He then went on to castigate the Republicans who are advocating for ending birthright citizenship, saying, "These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it!":

NAPOLITANO: The law has been upheld uniformly since 1868 and without exception. And we start with a couple of basics. The Congress cannot change the constitution of the 14th amendment on its own. It takes 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to change the amendment. […]

so this is nothing but political chatter by those who are concerned understandably by problems at the border.

[...] I can't imagine that there'd be a consensus to change the 14th amendment. [...]

HEMMER: But if the [birthright Citizenship Act] were carried out, you had 100 co-sponsors about a year ago, it would require at least one parent to be a US citizen for a baby to become an american citizen at birth. If you were to enact the BCA as some refer to it, is that a way to get around the 14th amendment, and get done what people like John Cornyn, and John Kyl and John Mccain, and we heard John Boehner are trying to do.

NAPOLITANO:

No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not!

All of it not part of it! The Supreme Court has said you cannot take privileges or benefits away from a child because of a crime committed by the parent. Therefore everybody born here is an American citizen, no matter what their parents' status was at their birth.

Watch it:

Not all Republicans have endorsed the extreme cause of altering the 14th amendment. Cesar Conda, who was a domestic policy adviser to former Vice President ####### Cheney, called the drive to change the amendment "offensive." "The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons," former Bush media advisor Mark McKinnon told the press.

link

[^_^ 5,021]

NAPOLITANO: The law has been upheld uniformly since 1868 and without exception.

Let that sink in to the thick RWN skulls around here.

Without.

Exception.

Yes, that's right. Without fu##ing exception, ya opportunistic douchebags.

[slim 1,528]

They're still not addressing the fact that illegals aren't necessarily under the jurisdiction of the US.

[^_^ 5,021]

They're still not addressing the fact that illegals aren't necessarily under the jurisdiction of the US.

The SCOTUS has, over and over again. You choose to ignore it.

[slim 1,528]

The SCOTUS has, over and over again. You choose to ignore it.

When, in 1896? In 1989?

Keep in mind they weren't addressing the same thing we're addressing now. They were addressing, as the judge said, whether they could be denied privileges and rights - not whether they were subject to those in the first place.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

So now Fox news is legit? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: wheres my hypocrite picture?

[evli1966 88]

So now Fox news is legit? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: wheres my hypocrite picture?

I was thinking the same thing?

WTH Steve your Killing me Smalls!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I was thinking the same thing?

WTH Steve your Killing me Smalls!

I often worry about Steve. he seems to be vacant of common sense and puts most of his beliefs in the words of others.

[Atencio 43]

When, in 1896? In 1989?

Keep in mind they weren't addressing the same thing we're addressing now. They were addressing, as the judge said, whether they could be denied privileges and rights - not whether they were subject to those in the first place.

How about in 1982? Is that recent enough? The State of Texas specifically brought up the question of jurisdiction in their argument.

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

[Heracles 417]

Based on international Law, does America have jurisdiction over illegal aliens that are foreign nationals. That is an interesting point.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,528]

resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Are they residents?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I was thinking the same thing?

WTH Steve your Killing me Smalls!

How hard is it to follow that even though you hate Obama and believe he's a Socialist trying to destroy American that on some of his policies, you might find yourself in agreement with? Fox News is without a doubt, a defacto propaganda machine for the Republican Party. However, as Judge Napolitano demonstrates, not every issue gets divided along ideological lines nor does every Republican agree with every party talking point.

You could say MSNBC has a liberal slant to it's editorial programming and you wouldn't get an argument from me. I also wouldn't find it odd, if on a rare occasion you found yourself in agreement with what Rachel Maddow might have said.

That's not hypocrisy. That's called not being an ideologue. People need to stop digging into their ideological trenches as if we are at war with one another. All that does is further divide this country.

[kaydee457 13]

How hard is it to follow that even though you hate Obama and believe he's a Socialist trying to destroy American that on some of his policies, you might find yourself in agreement with? Fox News is without a doubt, a defacto propaganda machine for the Republican Party. However, as Judge Napolitano demonstrates, not every issue gets divided along ideological lines nor does every Republican agree with every party talking point.

You could say MSNBC has a liberal slant to it's editorial programming and you wouldn't get an argument from me. I also wouldn't find it odd, if on a rare occasion you found yourself in agreement with what Rachel Maddow might have said.

That's not hypocrisy. That's called not being an ideologue. People need to stop digging into their ideological trenches as if we are at war with one another. All that does is further divide this country.

Things never seem to change here regardless of the current state of the economy, and the country as a whole, under this dolt 'Bama and the dems......

[Pooky 3,795]

Fox analyst slams Republicans for forgetting their ‘oath to uphold the Constitution.’

As Steven and AJ are now treating Fox News as a serious reference source, does this mean that they've come out of the closet as Right-Wing Birther Conspiracy Believers?