S.C. will hand down its opinion in Trump v. Barbara tomorrow, some fundamental questions are:

[Dante]

oh brother......
It's been proven through the years that the Justices don't know the Constitution
better than the FF's who wrote it, troll.

It was proven on day one, that the founding fathers could not even agree on the new Constitution, what it means, what it was supposed to mean. what...

try stepping up your knowledge base

D

Post in thread '2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.''

May 31, 2026

I did, dumbass. I also have read the letters of the writers of the Constitution, and they make it VERY clear that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL Right.

So who to listen to, a mentally ill moron on the web, or the people who actually WROTE the document.....gee...that's an easy answer.

When asked about original intent, James Madison wrote people should look to what the ratifiers thought words meant and what they, the ratifiers intended, and NOT look to the authors - framers, of the USC.

The ratifiers are not the states. The framers knew a government should not be deciding what sort of...

• Dante

• 

 

[Dante]

The word 'intent' is beyond your comprehension, troll.

You are about as ignorant on this topic as can be.

 

[toobfreak]

I agree, and I think that's the right call.

But Its the wrong call. Just like leaving elections open-ended for unlimited counting after election day. It allows someone to come here, drop a child, make them an American citizen by birth, then take them away and raise them entirely in another, foreign country, with foreign priorities and values. Would you consider that an American citizen?

Congress needs to limit birthright citizenship to those here legally.

But congress CAN'T do that and they never will, because it would take a super-majority of republicans; we know no democrats would support it, and even then, maybe not a few repubs either.

The amendment is already clear--- they need to both be BORN here AND be subject to our jurisdiction. Foreigners born here of foreign parents are NOT subject to our jurisdiction but subject to the laws of whatever country they came from, so why can't USSC just spell it out?

 

[johnwk]

It was proven on day one, that the founding fathers could not even agree on the new Constitution, what it means, what it was supposed to mean. what...

try stepping up your knowledge base

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[Dante]

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Not sure what point (counter-point?), you believe you are making here?

Again,

When asked about original intent, James Madison wrote people should look to what the ratifiers thought words meant and what they, the ratifiers intended, and NOT look to the authors - framers, of the USC.

The ratifiers are not the states. The framers knew a government should not be deciding what sort of government the people should have, so they sent out the new document to the people of each state, to the people of the proposed nation. This is why the state legislators did not get to ratify the document. The representatives chosen/elected by the people for the express purpose of voting on ratification, got to vote on ratification. Some of these people were elected office holders in their respective states, but they DID NOT sit in judgement of ratification as members of any state office.

 

[johnwk]

Not sure what point (counter-point?), you believe you are making here?

We are talking about the meaning of the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

 

[jacksonlamb]

We are talking about the meaning of the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

You won't accept the accepted definition.

Of course, what you do or think about is immaterial.

 

[BS Filter]

Ex-slaves were under American jurisdiction. Aliens are under their own country's jurisdiction. It's very simple. You have to be a knucklehead lying ignorant democrat to see kids of illegals being citizens by birth in the US. It doesn't make sense.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Ex-slaves were under American jurisdiction. Aliens are under their own country's jurisdiction. It's very simple. You have to be a knucklehead lying ignorant democrat to see kids of illegals being citizens by birth in the US. It doesn't make sense.

If you are standing on US soil, you are subject to its jurisdiction.

Doube me, BS Filter. Shoot someone in the back.

What a moron.

 

[WEATHER53]

And if the judges are governed by thought then this pre planned dropping a baby to gain citizenship will END!

 

[jacksonlamb]

And if the judges are governed by thought then this pre planning dropping a baby to gain citizenship will END!

^triggered TDSer^

 

[Dante]

We are talking about the meaning of the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Actually, we were not. Not exactly.

THE OP posted by you has a few arguments in it and I see you going back to what is highlighted in COLOR:

Tomorrow, 6/30/26 our Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), evaluating the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship, which changes existing policy recognizing birthright citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

Some fundamental questions which arise are:

Is the case, Wong Kim Ark, 1898, applicable to citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders? It is essential to note the circumstances of Wong Kim Ark’s parents’ presents in the U.S. at the time of Wong’s birth do not match those of children who are today born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

It is also important to note in 1898 when Wong was decided, there was no such thing as illegal entrant foreign nationals, nor U.S. temporary visa holders. If any restrictions on immigration existed, it was regulated by State authority. These facts lead to a conclusion that the Wong case is not applicable to children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

The above facts also confirm the 39th Congress never took up the political question of birthright citizenship as applied to illegal entrant foreign nationals or temporary visa holders, as neither existed during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment, and thus, granting such citizenship, which is a policy making decision, by the terms of our Constitution is left to the States under Article V, or to the people’s elected representatives . . . Congress or the President, and apparently beyond the purview of our unelected S.C. members.

It is also important to note there is a qualifying phrase in the 14th Amendment ‘. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “, which must be meet to receive the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship.

It is currently established that the following do not meet the qualifier:

Individuals born to foreign ambassadors or ministers who possess diplomatic immunity.

Tribal members who owed allegiance to their independent tribal nations. This exclusion was solidified in the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins but was later modified when Congress exercised it legislative authority and granted them statutory citizenship via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Children born to a hostile invading force.

Children born aboard foreign state-owned ships (such as warships) while temporarily in U.S. territorial waters.

Finally, another fundamental question arises which involves the very nature of our system requiring consent of the governed. Since there is no S.C. case or statutory law acknowledging the offspring of illegal entrants born on American soil are granted U.S. citizenship, or such citizenship is granted to temporary visa holders, and by the terms of the Constitution policy making decisions of such nature are left to the States under article V, or to the people’s elected representatives (Congress or President), it is hard to imagine our S.C. handing down a majority opinion which, out of thin air, would henceforth recognize natural born birthright citizenship to a new identifiable group of persons (children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders).

Considering the above stated facts, it seems obvious that our Supreme Court members, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and our system’s separation of powers, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President.

If the President’s newly adopted policy found in his E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is found to be objectionable by Congress, Congress is authorized under Section V of the 14th Amendment to overrule that policy.

Here is what Dante responded to:

It will probably get shot down. Although, the Founding Fathers would agree with Trump
IMO. The Amendment was designed for a specific group of people who were enslaved
here. Not for illegals coming over and popping out an anchor baby, to get the parents
and aunts, uncles, grandparents over here.

So Trump understands the Constitution better than all the Supreme Court justices in the history of the USA?

oh brother......
It's been proven through the years that the Justices don't know the Constitution
better than the FF's who wrote it, troll.

It was proven on day one, that the founding fathers could not even agree on the new Constitution, what it means, what it was supposed to mean. what...

try stepping up your knowledge base

D

Post in thread '2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.''

May 31, 2026

I did, dumbass. I also have read the letters of the writers of the Constitution, and they make it VERY clear that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL Right.

So who to listen to, a mentally ill moron on the web, or the people who actually WROTE the document.....gee...that's an easy answer.

When asked about original intent, James Madison wrote people should look to what the ratifiers thought words meant and what they, the ratifiers intended, and NOT look to the authors - framers, of the USC.

The ratifiers are not the states. The framers knew a government should not be deciding what sort of...

• Dante

• 

You jumped in here:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Not sure what point (counter-point?), you believe you are making here?

Again,

When asked about original intent, James Madison wrote people should look to what the ratifiers thought words meant and what they, the ratifiers intended, and NOT look to the authors - framers, of the USC.

The ratifiers are not the states. The framers knew a government should not be deciding what sort of government the people should have, so they sent out the new document to the people of each state, to the people of the proposed nation. This is why the state legislators did not get to ratify the document. The representatives chosen/elected by the people for the express purpose of voting on ratification, got to vote on ratification. Some of these people were elected office holders in their respective states, but they DID NOT sit in judgement of ratification as members of any state office.

Ending with this, which I will address.

We are talking about the meaning of the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

 

[WEATHER53]

^triggered TDSer^

???
Did you intend to make a response but could not?

 

[Dante]

Ex-slaves were under American jurisdiction. Aliens are under their own country's jurisdiction. It's very simple. You have to be a knucklehead lying ignorant democrat to see kids of illegals being citizens by birth in the US. It doesn't make sense.

If you are standing on US soil, you are subject to its jurisdiction.

Doube me, BS Filter. Shoot someone in the back.

What a moron.

Wow!

 

[BS Filter]

If you are standing on US soil, you are subject to its jurisdiction.

Doube me, BS Filter. Shoot someone in the back.

What a moron.

Not when you are a citizen of another country. You're confused about jurisdiction, as this jurisdiction isn't referring to obeying laws..it's about citizenship. Dumbo

 

[johnwk]

THE OP posted by you has a few arguments in it and I see you going back to what is highlighted in COLOR:

And what are your comments with regard to the OP?

 

[Dante]

Tomorrow, 6/30/26 our Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), evaluating the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship, which changes existing policy recognizing birthright citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

Some fundamental questions which arise are:

Is the case, Wong Kim Ark, 1898, applicable to citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders? It is essential to note the circumstances of Wong Kim Ark’s parents’ presents in the U.S. at the time of Wong’s birth do not match those of children who are today born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

It is also important to note in 1898 when Wong was decided, there was no such thing as illegal entrant foreign nationals, nor U.S. temporary visa holders. If any restrictions on immigration existed, it was regulated by State authority. These facts lead to a conclusion that the Wong case is not applicable to children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

The above facts also confirm the 39th Congress never took up the political question of birthright citizenship as applied to illegal entrant foreign nationals or temporary visa holders, as neither existed during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment, and thus, granting such citizenship, which is a policy making decision, by the terms of our Constitution is left to the States under Article V, or to the people’s elected representatives . . . Congress or the President, and apparently beyond the purview of our unelected S.C. members.

It is also important to note there is a qualifying phrase in the 14th Amendment ‘. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “, which must be meet to receive the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship.

It is currently established that the following do not meet the qualifier:

Individuals born to foreign ambassadors or ministers who possess diplomatic immunity.

Tribal members who owed allegiance to their independent tribal nations. This exclusion was solidified in the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins but was later modified when Congress exercised it legislative authority and granted them statutory citizenship via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Children born to a hostile invading force.

Children born aboard foreign state-owned ships (such as warships) while temporarily in U.S. territorial waters.

Finally, another fundamental question arises which involves the very nature of our system requiring consent of the governed. Since there is no S.C. case or statutory law acknowledging the offspring of illegal entrants born on American soil are granted U.S. citizenship, or such citizenship is granted to temporary visa holders, and by the terms of the Constitution policy making decisions of such nature are left to the States under article V, or to the people’s elected representatives (Congress or President), it is hard to imagine our S.C. handing down a majority opinion which, out of thin air, would henceforth recognize natural born birthright citizenship to a new identifiable group of persons (children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders).

Considering the above stated facts, it seems obvious that our Supreme Court members, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and our system’s separation of powers, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President.

If the President’s newly adopted policy found in his E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is found to be objectionable by Congress, Congress is authorized under Section V of the 14th Amendment to overrule that policy.

To be clear...
Here we are dealing here with an executive order, which demands a reinterpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction".

 

[Dante]

And what are your comments with regard to the OP?

Hello. Dante laid it out in a timeline. Dante commented on a post and that member came back with comments.

 

[Dante]

Tomorrow, 6/30/26 our Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), evaluating the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship, which changes existing policy recognizing birthright citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

Some fundamental questions which arise are:

Is the case, Wong Kim Ark, 1898, applicable to citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders? It is essential to note the circumstances of Wong Kim Ark’s parents’ presents in the U.S. at the time of Wong’s birth do not match those of children who are today born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

It is also important to note in 1898 when Wong was decided, there was no such thing as illegal entrant foreign nationals, nor U.S. temporary visa holders. If any restrictions on immigration existed, it was regulated by State authority. These facts lead to a conclusion that the Wong case is not applicable to children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

The above facts also confirm the 39th Congress never took up the political question of birthright citizenship as applied to illegal entrant foreign nationals or temporary visa holders, as neither existed during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment, and thus, granting such citizenship, which is a policy making decision, by the terms of our Constitution is left to the States under Article V, or to the people’s elected representatives . . . Congress or the President, and apparently beyond the purview of our unelected S.C. members.

It is also important to note there is a qualifying phrase in the 14th Amendment ‘. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “, which must be meet to receive the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship.

It is currently established that the following do not meet the qualifier:

Individuals born to foreign ambassadors or ministers who possess diplomatic immunity.

Tribal members who owed allegiance to their independent tribal nations. This exclusion was solidified in the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins but was later modified when Congress exercised it legislative authority and granted them statutory citizenship via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Children born to a hostile invading force.

Children born aboard foreign state-owned ships (such as warships) while temporarily in U.S. territorial waters.

Finally, another fundamental question arises which involves the very nature of our system requiring consent of the governed. Since there is no S.C. case or statutory law acknowledging the offspring of illegal entrants born on American soil are granted U.S. citizenship, or such citizenship is granted to temporary visa holders, and by the terms of the Constitution policy making decisions of such nature are left to the States under article V, or to the people’s elected representatives (Congress or President), it is hard to imagine our S.C. handing down a majority opinion which, out of thin air, would henceforth recognize natural born birthright citizenship to a new identifiable group of persons (children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders).

Considering the above stated facts, it seems obvious that our Supreme Court members, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and our system’s separation of powers, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President.

If the President’s newly adopted policy found in his E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is found to be objectionable by Congress, Congress is authorized under Section V of the 14th Amendment to overrule that policy.

First, did you use AI to help write this op?

 

[johnwk]

To be clear...
Here we are dealing here with an executive order, which demands a reinterpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction".

There is no existing statutory interpretation of the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Following is the wording of Trump's E.O. I find nothing in its wording conflicting with our Constitution or statutory law. Do you? If so, explain.


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b) “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 20, 2025.