After the Supreme Court granted itself supreme authority over the U.S. Constitution in its Marbury v Madison opinion, (contrary to the constitutional authority of Congress, the chief executive, and the Supreme Courts of the States), it has made gigantic strides in consolidating ultimate authority over every matter into its own purview.  It has always done that illegitimately via perverting the meaning of words, common sense, and straight forward  logic.  It has in effect asserted its own authority based on its own authority, -and not the Constitution.  It has done that either stealthily, in little steps, in larger steps, and, as with the health care monstrosity, in gigantic incomprehensible bounds the width of a continent.
There is no logic too solid for them to defy because some of them are spiritually corrupt, and outright betrayers of their oath of office.  They have no God, no principles, and no law that they must adhere to.  They are free and unchallengeable to impose their own personal feelings on all 300 million plus Americans who mistakenly think that they have the final say on everything, when the Constitution gave them no such authority.

   What follows is another illustration of the bastardization of the meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment, namely “jurisdiction”, which when bastardized, also perverts the meaning of the word connected to it, namely; “subject” as in subject to federal authority or jurisdiction.  Since jurisdiction is an ambiguous word with two meanings, the majority on the court saw a means to justify its intended ruling by perverting the application of “jurisdiction” from referring to authority to referring instead to territoriality.

A. Nash

~    ~    ~    ~



Special to the New York Times Published: June 16, 1982

WASHINGTON, June 15— Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court’s ruling today in Plyler v. Doe, in which the Court held that children who are illegal aliens have a constitutional right to a free public education. The majority opinion by Associate Justice

William J. Brennan Jr. was joined by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens and by three Associate Justices who also wrote separate concurring opinions, Lewis F. Powell, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry A. Blackmun.

The dissenting opinion was by Chief Justice Warren E.  Burger was joined by Associate Justices Byron R. White, William H. Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor.

From Majority Opinion by Justice Brennan….

10. Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,…” (Emphasis added.)

Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words:   ‘within its jurisdiction’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that [e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  Id. at 693.

  As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, 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. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).


From Dissenting Opinion By Chief Justice Burger:

   Were it our business to set the nation’s social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children, -including illegal aliens, of an elementary education. However, the Constitution does not constitute us as ”Platonic Guardians’‘ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ”wisdom” or ”common sense.”

“We TRESPASS on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policy-making role as the Court does today.  The Court’s holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of ”remedies” for the failures -or simply the laggard pace -of the political processes of our system of government.  The Court employs, and in my view, abuses the 14th Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver.

That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court DISTORTS our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others.   In a sense, the Court’s opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.

The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there. The distinction the State of Texas has drawn – based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies – is not unconstitutional.

The equal protection clause protects against arbitrary and irrational classifications, and against invidious discrimination stemming from prejudice and hostility; it is not an all-encompassing ”equalizer” designed to eradicate every distinction for which persons are not “responsible”.

Dissenting Opinion:  Fundamental Rights

The importance of education is beyond dispute. Yet we have held repeatedly that the importance of a governmental service does not elevate it to the status of a “fundamental right” for purposes of equal protection analysis. The Court points to no meaningful way to distinguish between education and other governmental benefits in this context. Is the Court suggesting that education is more “fundamental” than food, shelter or medical care?

Without laboring what will undoubtedly seem obvious to many, it simply is not “irrational” for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons (whose presence in the state and this country is illegal) as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state.

Today’s cases, I regret to say, present yet another example of unwarranted judicial action which in the long run tends to contribute to the weakening of our political processes.

18. As the District Court observed in No. 80-1538, the confluence of Government policies has resulted in the existence of a large number of employed illegal aliens, such as the parents of plaintiffs in this case, whose presence is tolerated, whose employment is perhaps even welcomed, but who are virtually defenseless against any abuse, exploitation, or callous neglect to which the state or the state’s NATURAL CITIZENS and business organizations may wish to subject them.

19. ~With respect to the actions of the Federal Government, alienage classifications may be intimately related to the conduct of foreign policy, to the federal prerogative to control access to the United States, and to the plenary federal power to determine who has sufficiently manifested his allegiance to become a citizen of the Nation.  No State may independently exercise a like power. (end   quote)