“NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
I believe this phrase has been generally defined by the courts as excluding only those with diplomatic immunity, which by definition excludes them from US jurisdiction. Anybody else in this country is subject to its jurisdiction, as they will quickly find out if caught in criminality.
I agree the other interpretation is not illogical. I’m just pointing out that trying to overturn many decades of judicial precedent in such cases is pretty tough.
I should point out that common law provides another exclusion, which is children born to members of an invading army on US soil. That is not at present a big problem. :)
“””“NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
I believe this phrase has been generally defined by the courts as excluding only those with diplomatic immunity”””
How did that ever come about? Does a Brit born in the U.S. not owe allegiance to the U.K.? Does a child born abroad to U.S. citizens not owe allegiance to the U.S.?
“””Anybody else in this country is subject to its jurisdiction, as they will quickly find out if caught in criminality.”””
Does that mean it’s okay if a U.S. citizen goes to China to commit treason against the U.S.? Is it then not a crime because it wasn’t committed within U.S. jurisdiction? Can said U.S. citizen then return to the U.S. free and clear of all criminal prosecution because the illegal act didn’t occur on U.S. soil?
I’m stopped from accepting the courts’ supposed definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” by the VERY deliberate “NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE” 14th Amendment clarification made by Trumbull himself in the Congressional Record.