S.C. believed to lack 5 votes to affirm non-conditional, U.S. birthright citizenship

[johnwk]

You argument is not supported by the evidence, so SCOTUS will snort, laugh, and overrule.

Senator Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, states the following involving the meaning of "jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK

And Senator Trumbull says:

.” . . . The provision is, that ‘‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’’ That means ‘‘ subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ . . . .What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“ LINK

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

johnwk, I do read you and respect some of what you argue.

You have a long haul on this one.

SCOTUS wants the lower courts to handle all these arguments before it comes back up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Senator Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, states the following involving the meaning of "jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK



And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Problem is, the amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty"

The problem with Bingham is that he was responsible for the 14th Amendment, except for the first sentence.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5013&context=ndlr

"By “responsible” I mean that John Bingham, Republican congressman from Ohio, was the author of the text of these Sections (with the exception of the opening definition of citizenship)."

However this article does say:

"Those persons who are to be excluded, however, are “citizens by birth of the several States, and therefore are citizens of the United States, and as such are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.”"

Reading what came before this, in the article, it talks about how a foreigner, not born in the US, can be a citizen of one state, but not a citizen of the "several states" or "the United States".

Now, the first part was written in such a way as to stop people saying that Native Americans born on reservations were not US citizens. They made it so that if you were under US jurisdiction when born, you were a US citizen. Because of the nature of Native Americans and the way they tried to say they weren't US citizens.

This is what was written, so that is what was passed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, in the link I provided, the people who debated the amendment said "owing allegiance to no other country"

It appears they were interpreting "jurisdiction" in a Broader sense, not just subject to the laws.

So, why didn't they write this in the amendment?

The problem here is that it was done to stop people preventing Native Americans from being US citizens. "If you have allegiance to your tribe, then you are not a US citizen".

I'm sure there were those who wanted such text, but they didn't put this into the amendment for a reason.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I linked the article which has all the sources in it. Excerpts from the debates

Well, the only article I can find that you posted is MSN and that doesn't have the excerpts from the debates as far as I can tell.

 

[johnwk]

This is what was written, so that is what was passed.

Your opinion is noted. And there there are the rules of constitutional construction, the most fundamental one being is to adhere to the text of the Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

 

[johnwk]

The problem here is that it was done to stop people preventing Native Americans from being US citizens. "If you have allegiance to your tribe, then you are not a US citizen".

And, foreign nationals have an allegiance to their country of origin and are not U.S. citizens, unless of course they take our oath of allegiance during our naturalization process.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your opinion is noted. And there there are the rules of constitutional construction, the most fundamental one being is to adhere to the text of the Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

Okay, so when adhering to "the text of the Constitution" do you look at what was written, or look at what wasn't written?

Yes, there is a certain amount of context to what was written, different ways of interpreting things, but I've found NOTHING that suggests the people who wrote this wanted to stop children being born, outside of POW camps and aside from diplomats, from having their kids as US citizens.

Why? Because it just wasn't an issue. The issue was people trying to stop black and Native Americans from being given US citizenship.

Now, your argument is "they didn't think about it, so it can't be"
Mine is "well they wrote that all people, except two groups, would be citizens"

Seems that I'm looking at what they wrote and you're trying to change what they wrote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And, foreign nationals have an allegiance to their country of origin and are not U.S. citizens, unless of course they take our oath of allegiance during our naturalization process.

And I haven't found anything about "foreign allegiance" in connection with this part of the Constitution.

A child doesn't have any allegiance to anyone other than those who feed it and wipe their ass.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Birthright naturalization is about babies, guys, not adults.

They have no allegiance to their parents birthlands.

The babies' birthland is America, and they are subject to America.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You argument is not supported by the evidence, so SCOTUS will snort, laugh, and overrule.

My argument is supported by the words of the people who wrote the amendment.

I doubt the Supreme Court will snort and laugh, I just dont think they are the snorting and laughing kind of people.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

My argument is supported by the words of the people who wrote the amendment.

I doubt the Supreme Court will snort and laugh, I just dont think they are the snorting and laughing kind of people.

SCOTUS will disagree. You are twisting the words into a meaning the writers never intended.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, why didn't they write this in the amendment?

Because it was understood what the term meant at the time. If they didnt want for it to mean what they discussed, then why did they discuss it?

The problem here is that it was done to stop people preventing Native Americans from being US citizens. "If you have allegiance to your tribe, then you are not a US citizen".

Ok, so we see that their meaning of jurisdiction is not about laws, but allegiance.

I'm sure there were those who wanted such text, but they didn't put this into the amendment for a reason.

Do you think, back in their day, they would have ever conceived the idea of a child becoming a citizen but the parents were not? Causing the dilemma that the child would legally be allowed to be here, but the child's parents wouldn't? If they intended for it to be citizens by birth, then why didnt they include a provision that the parents would also become citizens? Why would they offer citizenship to the child alone? Why not just say "if you have a baby on american soil, welcome to the country! You're a citizen now!"?

 

[ThisIsMe]

SCOTUS will disagree. You are twisting the words into a meaning the writers never intended.

See, I think you all are twisting the words.

I agree though, scotus will never overturn it. There would be too much backlash if they did

 

[johnwk]

I agree though, scotus will never overturn it.

Overturn what? Just curious.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Overturn what? Just curious.

Birthright citizenship.

 

[johnwk]

Birthright citizenship.

It's not the Courts assigned duty to overturn current citizenship policy. Congress, by the terms of the 14th Amendment, is delegated power to adopt "appropriate legislation" to enforce the 14th Amendment. And Article 2 of our Constitution allows the president to adopt public policy.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's not the Courts assigned duty to overturn current citizenship policy. Congress, by the terms of the 14th Amendment, is delegated power to adopt "appropriate legislation" to enforce the 14th Amendment. And Article 2 of our Constitution allows the president to adopt public policy.

Only SCOTUS can handle this,

 

[johnwk]

Only SCOTUS can handle this,

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Our Supreme Court says:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS will not worry about your worries, johnwk.