Of course, what it will be!
And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!
Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case
- Thread starter SweetSue92
- Start date
And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!
JohnDB
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2021
- 16,790
- 12,470
- 2,288
UmmmmOf course, what it will be!
And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!
So reading a definition that is opposite of what it plainly says is preferred?
Then the Constitution has zero meaning...
It is subject to feelings at the moment. Same thing goes for contracts, mortgages, bank accounts, and whatever.
Not exactly a comfortable idea for anyone.
During the 1866 debates, the framers engaged in heavy discussions over who was covered by the new amendment.
Senator Jacob Howard added the Citizenship Clause on the Senate floor. He stated that the phrase "all persons born or naturalized" was simply declaring existing law: that every person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction was automatically a citizen.
Opponents questioned whether this would grant citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies. Howard and his allies, like Senator John Conness, confirmed that it did. They clarified that the only people excluded by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were children of foreign diplomats or native tribes serving their own independent governments.
Representative John Bingham intentionally used the broader word "person" rather than "citizen" in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. He argued that the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property belonged to every human being within the country's borders, regardless of their citizenship status.
www.scotusblog.com
Howard used this quote to explain that the new Citizenship Clause was simply recognizing existing common law.
Bingham stated this to show that the amendment's main goal was to force states to protect the fundamental rights of all human beings within their borders.
teachingamericanhistory.org
The Citizenship Clause Debate
Senator Jacob Howard added the Citizenship Clause on the Senate floor. He stated that the phrase "all persons born or naturalized" was simply declaring existing law: that every person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction was automatically a citizen.
Opponents questioned whether this would grant citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies. Howard and his allies, like Senator John Conness, confirmed that it did. They clarified that the only people excluded by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were children of foreign diplomats or native tribes serving their own independent governments.
The Due Process and Equal Protection Debate
Representative John Bingham intentionally used the broader word "person" rather than "citizen" in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. He argued that the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property belonged to every human being within the country's borders, regardless of their citizenship status.
The 14th Amendment does not codify English principles of subjectship: A brief reply to the Amar brothers
Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar have responded to my recent post arguing that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to the children of temporary visitors to the United […]
www.scotusblog.com
Senator Jacob Howard
Howard used this quote to explain that the new Citizenship Clause was simply recognizing existing common law.
Representative John Bingham
Bingham stated this to show that the amendment's main goal was to force states to protect the fundamental rights of all human beings within their borders.
Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment
Source: Senator Jacob Howard, Speech introducing the 14th Amendment, May 23, 1866, Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 2764–2766, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=072/llcg072.db&recNum=845. … The section of the amendment they have submitted […]
teachingamericanhistory.org
Constitution 101 Resources - 12.5 Primary Source: John Bingham, One Country, One Constitution, One People (1866) | Constitution Center
Constitution 101 resource for 12.5 Primary Source: John Bingham, One Country, One Constitution, One People (1866)
constitutioncenter.org
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 54,757
- 40,508
- 3,645
Yup. That's your argument - ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is meaningless. Superfulous. All you have to be is born here.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 62,718
- 22,497
- 2,250
You hope.Of course, what it will be!
And I think it will be 7 to 2, in the constitution's favor, and Trump loses!
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 62,718
- 22,497
- 2,250
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia
- Sep 16, 2012
- 78,134
- 75,262
- 3,605
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United states, but will include every other class of persons."
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United states, but will include every other class of persons."
This is the list of persons that are not covered by the Amendment.
It includes embassadors (sic), foreigners and aliens.
It can't be more clear than that. This amendment is clearly meant for the children of US citizens and former slaves. It did not even include members of Indian nations, that would come much later with the Citizenship Act of 1924.
Why on Earth would you think this amendment covers the births of illegal aliens, when they didn't even think it should cover members of Native American nations?
I honestly thought you were smarter than this. I have never questioned your integrity before, but you are seriously making me reconsider on that point. I will still believe that you just don't understand this sentence, the meaning, and the history of our nation to figure out what the intent of the Amendment is, when it is spelled out for you.
Why would he include in this statement that families of embassadors (sic) are not included when he was making clear that all foreigners and aliens are not included? To make absolutely clear of who it covers, and who it does not.
Are you aware that babies of foreign diplomats that are born in the United States are not birthright citizens?
I have no idea why you are trying to twist this to mean something it does not.
Folks that don't let partisan ideology cloud their judgement and integrity can clearly understand which people were not intended to be covered by the 14th amendment.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 78,134
- 75,262
- 3,605
Seriously, that's what you are going with?
When adjectives are used to describe articles, they are NEVER separated by commas.
You are being manipulative by leaving off the conjunction after the list of articles. That is the ONLY way you could possibly make such an inane argument.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Go right ahead, because that is what you are going to have to do.
Subject to the Jurisdiction there of, has a defined meaning that was argued and settled, no??
Yep, Senator Howard supported the 14th including all persons. What he was noting was the exception for Aliens Diplomats here who work for their Foreign governments ...had to be an exception, because current law gave the foreigners Diplomatic Immunity so they were not under our jurisdiction, but were under the jurisdiction of their government."Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
ALL PERSONS born on our soil PRIOR TO the 14th amendment were born citizens except children of Diplomats, native Americans and SLAVES. It was Common Law that we adopted, Jus Soli citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, simply included children born of Slaves in ALL PERSONS....
Disagree TOTALLY. Howard is saying in full context that ALL PERSONS born on our soil are citizens, that no longer needed to be discussed he said.... prior to the out of context part you are hung up on. He was only descriptively speaking about the foreign alien diplomats and ambassadors. There would have been no need for Howard to give an exception for foreign diplomats etc if all foreign aliens were ALREADY excluded."This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United states, but will include every other class of persons."
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United states, but will include every other class of persons."
This is the list of persons that are not covered by the Amendment.
It includes embassadors (sic), foreigners and aliens.
It can't be more clear than that. This amendment is clearly meant for the children of US citizens and former slaves. It did not even include members of Indian nations, that would come much later with the Citizenship Act of 1924.
Why on Earth would you think this amendment covers the births of illegal aliens, when they didn't even think it should cover members of Native American nations?
I honestly thought you were smarter than this. I have never questioned your integrity before, but you are seriously making me reconsider on that point. I will still believe that you just don't understand this sentence, the meaning, and the history of our nation to figure out what the intent of the Amendment is, when it is spelled out for you.
Why would he include in this statement that families of embassadors (sic) are not included when he was making clear that all foreigners and aliens are not included? To make absolutely clear of who it covers, and who it does not.
Are you aware that babies of foreign diplomats that are born in the United States are not birthright citizens?
I have no idea why you are trying to twist this to mean something it does not.
Folks that don't let partisan ideology cloud their judgement and integrity can clearly understand which people were not intended to be covered by the 14th amendment.
History is NOT your friend MisterBeale!!
Were all children born on our soil from the Irish that migrated here during the great famine, citizens? Yes, they were.
Were children of foreigners, aliens born on our soil prior to the14th citizens? Via Common Law which we followed, they were.
You and others regurgitating that one line, have been INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD....
Last edited:
You are making the insane argument, based on your ignorance of history.
Why didn't anyone use your argument about Howard's statement which you claim is clear as day, before YOU, in a court of law, the past 150 years, and win on that argument?
Last edited:
Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 4,654
- 1,154
- 140
* Thereof Discerning Between Subject Of And Subject To Us Jurisdiction *
* On Precision Of Dumb Arguments Without Accuracy *
Second , a us citizen is a subject of us jurisdiction in addition to being subject to it , and non citizen individuals become a subject of us jurisdiction through diplomatic agreement , as a subject by title in us legal immigration system , whether such an agreement exists between us government and other governments , or even between us government and every other class of individuals .
Actions of diplomacy granting immunity to diplomats , whereby subject to the us jurisdiction is suspended , also means that the diplomat is a subject of us jurisdiction , as a subject by title in us legal immigration system , and a specific clause must be included to exclude a live birth from us citizenship .
The parents of wong kim ark were subjects by title in us legal immigration system and a specific clause to exclude a live birth would be required to exclude citizenship jus soli .
Clearly , an exclusion of live births from foreign diplomats is based in safety and security for autonomy of us citizens from national allegiances , while birth tourism includes a parallel risk from foreign agency .
The term thereof includes many nuances , specifically that there is a difference between an individual whom is subject to us jurisdiction and an individual whom is a subject of us jurisdiction .
A live birth from any whom is not a subject by title in us legal immigration system is also not a subject of us jurisdiction , though all are subject to us jurisdiction , such that jus sanginin citizenship is provisioned .
* Succinct Terminology Of Political Perspectives Through Colloquial Language By Legal Wrights *
Consider a us 14th amendment that with the phrase " and a subject of its jurisdiction " , such would include a connotation that us citizens are subjugated or subservient to us government , similar in connotation with being a subject of an emperor or of some other totalitarian government .
Us republic is founded upon independence of the individual , through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , whether an individual is a citizen , an incorporate , or a greater individual such as a collective state , or us federate , or a civil litigant .
Thus to convey that subject of us jurisdiction implies onus of accountability for safety , security and general welfare of us citizens by us government could not be conclusively deduced through the phrase " and a subject of its jurisdiction " , while an onus of accountability could be deductively concluded through the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , that also does not imply subjugation or subservience .
Be aware of any espousing to be one whom submits to submission , as such also espouse abdicating to subjugation and subservience for authoritarian purveyors .
* Should A Constitutional Amendment Ensure *
An etymology of the term person deconstructs to per , as in countable by census through live birth , and son , as in male progeny , whereby females are not equivalent with men and are syntactically included among individuals whom can also be us citizens , whereby the term individual should be applied forthwith .
The term individual would clarify a live birth requirement for equal protection with a us citizen from us 14th amendment , and also antiquate contention through title 1 section 8 of us code which defines a per son as any completing live birth .
* On Precision Of Dumb Arguments Without Accuracy *
First , the complete clause is subject to the jurisdiction thereof , so stop abbreviating the clause by omitting the term thereof , as a linguistics analysis of the entire clause is remanded ."Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia
Second , a us citizen is a subject of us jurisdiction in addition to being subject to it , and non citizen individuals become a subject of us jurisdiction through diplomatic agreement , as a subject by title in us legal immigration system , whether such an agreement exists between us government and other governments , or even between us government and every other class of individuals .
Actions of diplomacy granting immunity to diplomats , whereby subject to the us jurisdiction is suspended , also means that the diplomat is a subject of us jurisdiction , as a subject by title in us legal immigration system , and a specific clause must be included to exclude a live birth from us citizenship .
The parents of wong kim ark were subjects by title in us legal immigration system and a specific clause to exclude a live birth would be required to exclude citizenship jus soli .
Clearly , an exclusion of live births from foreign diplomats is based in safety and security for autonomy of us citizens from national allegiances , while birth tourism includes a parallel risk from foreign agency .
The term thereof includes many nuances , specifically that there is a difference between an individual whom is subject to us jurisdiction and an individual whom is a subject of us jurisdiction .
A live birth from any whom is not a subject by title in us legal immigration system is also not a subject of us jurisdiction , though all are subject to us jurisdiction , such that jus sanginin citizenship is provisioned .
* Succinct Terminology Of Political Perspectives Through Colloquial Language By Legal Wrights *
Consider a us 14th amendment that with the phrase " and a subject of its jurisdiction " , such would include a connotation that us citizens are subjugated or subservient to us government , similar in connotation with being a subject of an emperor or of some other totalitarian government .
Us republic is founded upon independence of the individual , through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , whether an individual is a citizen , an incorporate , or a greater individual such as a collective state , or us federate , or a civil litigant .
Thus to convey that subject of us jurisdiction implies onus of accountability for safety , security and general welfare of us citizens by us government could not be conclusively deduced through the phrase " and a subject of its jurisdiction " , while an onus of accountability could be deductively concluded through the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , that also does not imply subjugation or subservience .
Be aware of any espousing to be one whom submits to submission , as such also espouse abdicating to subjugation and subservience for authoritarian purveyors .
* Should A Constitutional Amendment Ensure *
An etymology of the term person deconstructs to per , as in countable by census through live birth , and son , as in male progeny , whereby females are not equivalent with men and are syntactically included among individuals whom can also be us citizens , whereby the term individual should be applied forthwith .
The term individual would clarify a live birth requirement for equal protection with a us citizen from us 14th amendment , and also antiquate contention through title 1 section 8 of us code which defines a per son as any completing live birth .
Last edited:
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 54,757
- 40,508
- 3,645
Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 4,654
- 1,154
- 140
" Thereof As Of There Addendum "
* Flipped Flopped Logical Flap *
* Another Update Jus Originis *
The term jus sanguinis alludes to origin by blood , however a genetic relationship between an individual and nation of origin may not exist , and the correct latin annotation is jus originis .
* Flipped Flopped Logical Flap *
An etymology of the term person deconstructs to per , as in countable by census through live birth , and son , as in male progeny , whereby females are not equivalent with men and are syntactically NOT included among individuals whom can also be us citizens , whereby the term individual should be applied forthwith .
* Another Update Jus Originis *
The term jus sanguinis alludes to origin by blood , however a genetic relationship between an individual and nation of origin may not exist , and the correct latin annotation is jus originis .
Last edited:
The Sage of Main Street
Platinum Member
Tooth-Decay Symbolism
Children born to diplomats are under the same "jurisdiction." We can't expect their home countries to come and take them away if they commit a crime. Just as with anchor babies, jurisdiction to deport those protected by diplomatic immunity only applies to Americans sending them back where they came from.
The Sage of Main Street
Platinum Member
Since, unlike a presidential veto being overturned, there is no check on the SCROTUS junta, it therefore violates the "We, the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution" clause of the controlling Preamble.
In fact, many events in American History violate the promises made in the Preamble. That is the inevitable result of the fact that the rest of the text takes away the right of the people to have any say in interpreting the Beltway laws they are forced to live under, as evidenced by the assertion that a huffy-puffy blowhard Constitution-banger can just quote a statement of SCROTUS and think we have to automatically submit to the junta's personal and oligarchic opinions.
Amendment rights are also weak and insulting. Congress has to approve by a two-thirds majority our right to even vote on an Amendment. All three branches of this poison oak act together in practicing "mob rule," yet they define giving us self-determination on the issues that most affect us and not their sheltered elitist situation as "mob rule."
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,483
- 39,982
- 2,250
They cant be charged with a crime.
You said something but I dont know what.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Good news for President Trump and for all Americans, the USA National Debt is significantly a practical JOKE!- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 0
-
Violence Surrounding Trump Supporters & Trump Supporters Seeing Themselves as Victims of Violence
- Started by Dante
- Replies: 2
