Is Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, constitutional?

[Care4all]

See:

SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTIONTHEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

Also see:

The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question

Few of President Donald Trump’s new executive orders have caused as much alarm as the one on birthright citizenship. That order prohibits federal agencies from issuing or accepting citizenship documents for children born in the U.S. when neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent...

www.heritage.org

Your opinion article is extremely weak and amateur, and proven not to be true, they skipped several court cases that solidified birthright citizenship before and after the 14th Amendment. Did you even read my opinion piece link, with the history, and supporting court cases and links? Subject to the jurisdiction there of, has real meaning at the time the constitution writers put the clause in there that was carried down to us initially with Common Law.

 

[johnwk]

Your opinion article is extremely weak and amateur,

According to you.

See: The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question 2

Key Takeaways

Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens.

Legislative history shows that Congress intended the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate permanent race-based barriers to citizenship.

The president has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The bottom line is, elections have consequences, and the people have called for change to existing public policy regarding birthright citizenship. Our courts are not vested with power to create public policy.

Madison observed that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[Care4all]

According to you.

See: The Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, but Trump Is Right To Question 2


The bottom line is, elections have consequences, and the people have called for change to existing public policy regarding birthright citizenship. Our courts are not vested with power to create public policy.

Madison observed that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, bear this out. Initially, the proposed Amendment guaranteed rights to citizens without defining citizens. Senator Wade pointed this out and suggested guaranteeing rights to all persons born in the United States. Senator Fessenden objected that some U.S.-born people were not citizens under existing law (which Wade acknowledged, mentioning ambassadors). Senator Howard then proposed the language that became the citizenship clause, describing the "subject to the jurisdiction" language as excluding children of ambassadors.

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Finally, the Senators considered the citizenship of U.S.-born children of aliens. Senator Cowan objected (in overtly racial terms) that the proposal would make citizens of U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. California Senator Conness (himself an Irish immigrant) agreed it would have this effect, but enthusiastically endorsed it. No Senator disagreed with the Cowan/Conness interpretation, including Howard (who wrote the clause) and Senator Trumbull (who originally introduced the proposed Amendment). Indeed, in an earlier exchange with Cowan, Trumbull said that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants (like all U.S.-born children of immigrants) should be considered citizens. And the Senate then adopted Howard's language without further revision.

The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States

In this post I'll consider the original meaning of the second requirement of the Constitution's citizenship clause: that a person be born "subject to the

reason.com

 

[johnwk]

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, bear this out. Initially, the proposed Amendment guaranteed rights to citizens without defining citizens. Senator Wade pointed this out and suggested guaranteeing rights to all persons born in the United States. Senator Fessenden objected that some U.S.-born people were not citizens under existing law (which Wade acknowledged, mentioning ambassadors). Senator Howard then proposed the language that became the citizenship clause, describing the "subject to the jurisdiction" language as excluding children of ambassadors.

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Finally, the Senators considered the citizenship of U.S.-born children of aliens. Senator Cowan objected (in overtly racial terms) that the proposal would make citizens of U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. California Senator Conness (himself an Irish immigrant) agreed it would have this effect, but enthusiastically endorsed it. No Senator disagreed with the Cowan/Conness interpretation, including Howard (who wrote the clause) and Senator Trumbull (who originally introduced the proposed Amendment). Indeed, in an earlier exchange with Cowan, Trumbull said that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants (like all U.S.-born children of immigrants) should be considered citizens. And the Senate then adopted Howard's language without further revision.

The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States

In this post I'll consider the original meaning of the second requirement of the Constitution's citizenship clause: that a person be born "subject to the

reason.com

What, exactly, is the point of you posting that?

The bottom line is, elections have consequences, and the people have called for change to existing public policy regarding birthright citizenship. Our courts are not vested with power to create public policy.

Madison observed that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[johnwk]

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, [ . . . cut for brevity . . . ]

What, exactly, is the point of you posting that?

 

[0311]

What lie are you suggesting I posted? Please quote the words.

The Constitution does NOT give the Executive Branch the right to determine Birth Right Citizenship. It is written into the Constitution as stated in the 14th. Amendment. Felon47 is over reaching. The way that right can be rescinded by amending the Constitution. He does NOT have the power to that. What part of that fails to penetrate the totally vacuous space between your ears..

Everything you post is a lie.