The nature of "jurisdiction"

You're wrong there Admiral..............Trump's in office............... :biggrin:

Article 14 section 3 What happened with that?
The 14th Amendment was upheld in that it did not apply to anyone because Trump was not convicted of insurrection. The states were smacked down by the wording of the Amendment.

I am going to have to start charging tuition for these lessons.
 
The 14th Amendment was upheld in that it did not apply to anyone because Trump was not convicted of insurrection.

Wrong again. 14-3 only applies to officers of the US.
1737580889829.png


I am going to have to start charging tuition for these lessons.
You'll end up like Trump college.
 
Why are you continuously proving me correct?

You claimed that under 14-3, Scotus said He didn't commit an insurrection, when in reality, Scotus said that article and section doesn't apply to presidents...... :happy-1:

You are trying to split hairs and using semantics to argue your point which is to say I am right!

Actually you've shown you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Sorry, Chat GPT, er Mariyam.

"Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment, in 1866, documented his objection in writing "[E]very 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."

FYI

Wong's parents were legal residents. They were not illegals.

Plyer has nothing to do with granting itzenship
 
The practical problem is that it would create chaos. How many "Americans" became citizens under this rule? If it is reversed, does that call into question EVEN THEIR kids? Maybe. Any ruling in Trump's favor would only apply prospectively, and not to anyone who is already a citizen under this prior rule.

"(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.

 
Decent article on birthright:

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind?

Happily, we don’t need to speculate, as they were asked that very question. They unambiguously stated that it meant “complete” jurisdiction, such as existed under the law at the time, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were “subject to a foreign power.”

The Supreme Court confirmed that understanding (albeit in dicta) in the first case addressing the 14th Amendment, noting in The Slaughterhouse Cases in 1872 that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” It then confirmed that understanding in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, holding that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase required that one be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” John Elk, the Native American claimant in the case, did not meet that requirement because, as a member of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States.

Thomas Cooley, the leading treatise writer of the era, also confirmed that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.” More fundamentally, this understanding of the Citizenship Clause is the only one compatible with the consent of the governed principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
__________________
But even if Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided (as Ed Erler points out, it was not), honest scholars must acknowledge that Wong Kim Ark involved a child born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the United States, not those who were only here temporarily or illegally. Indeed, honest scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants, or even temporary lawful visitors, are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States. And they will be forced to acknowledge as true the claim in Trump’s executive order that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted [in any formal, binding way] to extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the United States.”
___________________
Alas, when it comes to anything related to Trump, there are very few honest scholars. Instead of acknowledging the Supreme Court’s limited, actual holding in Wong Kim Ark, they will point to dicta in which the Court’s majority falsely claimed that the Citizenship Clause codified the old English common law rule known as jus soli—that anyone born on the king’s soil owed perpetual allegiance to the king. They will overlook that our Declaration of Independence was an explicit and eloquent repudiation of jus soli, stating in its closing paragraph that “these United Colonies…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” They will overlook that Congress did not view Wong Kim Ark as mandating automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil when, a quarter century later, it extended citizenship to Native Americans pursuant to its power under the Naturalization Clause, an act that would have been superfluous if Wong Kim Ark had already settled the matter that everyone born in the U.S., including Native Americans, were automatically citizens. And they will overlook that when a 1920s guest worker program ended in the wake of the Great Depression and more than a million Mexican workers were repatriated to Mexico, the repatriation included their U.S.-born children. No one at the time claimed that the children were U.S. citizens.

Nevertheless, despite the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, its initial interpretation by the Supreme Court, and its compatibility with the social compact “consent of the governed” political theory of the Declaration, our government agencies have for more than a half-century, without any formal amendment, court decision, or official authoritative pronouncement, been acting as though birth alone is sufficient to confer citizenship. And many children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors have organized their lives in reliance on those informal views. (President Trump’s executive order does not disturb those interests. It makes the order applicable only to children born on U.S. soil more than 30 days after the order’s effective date, to parents who were unlawfully present, or lawfully but only temporarily present, in the United States at the time of their birth.)


 
All of this furor over an issue the conclusion of which will never result in an overturn of birthright citizenship.
 

Forum List

Back
Top