As to "subject to the jurisdiction" that goes beyond simply being subject to arrest for jaywalking or violating any other law. Read this: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans. And, oh boy, does that article raise an interesting issue if an Indian (no pun intended) - ok, Native American - tries to run.
“Talk to Scalia. Every word in the Constitution has meaning and you can’t just dismiss one because you personally feel it is superfluous. By definition there is no such thing as a superfluous Constitutional word. You cannot simply strike out “natural-born” and keep the “citizen” part. Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition (post 27).”
This argument makes no sense because one hand you say that we should look to the plain meaning and the words and ‘natural’ and ‘born’ are easy enough words to understand.
But, then you say we shouldn’t look to the plain words and that the drafters of the Const. really meant that we should look at an 18th Century treatise, which they didn’t mention by name in the Const., which wasn’t even binding legal authority or even a court case, OK.....
“Talk to Scalia. Every word in the Constitution has meaning and you can’t just dismiss one because you personally feel it is superfluous. By definition there is no such thing as a superfluous Constitutional word. You cannot simply strike out ‘natural-born’ and keep the ‘citizen’ part.”
What the heck are you talking about? Where have I suggested I would, and why would I want to do that? I know very well not all citizens can be president.
“Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition”
Even if he did, again, it’s moot point considering the 14th amendment.
“As to ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ that goes beyond simply being subject to arrest for jaywalking or violating any other law”
No it doesn’t, in fact. If you are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, you are subject to every law, including jaywalking. If you weren’t liable for such laws, you’d have qualified immunity, and there’d be grounds to consider you outside U.S. jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants have no such immunity, are in fact subject to all laws like you and me, and are as such under U.S. jurisdiction.
“And, oh boy, does that article raise an interesting issue if an Indian (no pun intended) - ok, Native American - tries to run.”
That comes as no surprise, since they’re always listed, along with diplomats and invading armies, as being one of the primary categories of those who aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Native American tribes have always been considered sort of nations within the nation. That’s why, if you were wondering, they can run those casinos even though you and I can’t.
“Talk to Scalia.”
If you did, you’d be disappointed.
I once asked a Congressman about the birthright citizenship question, as in my view it SHOULD be changed, and he said that he had a discussion with Scalia, who indicated that the SCOTUS would uphold 14th amendment to cover illegal aliens. I still think its worth Congress putting in law what ‘under the jurisdiction’ means and giving it a try.
“You cannot simply strike out “natural-born” and keep the “citizen” part. Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition (post 27).”
This is where you fall completely off the wagon. A definition from a foreigner written 200 years ago has no relevence in US law. It’s what US law says that matters, and nowhere in US law does it say what you claim - the simple fact is that ‘natural-born’ is just a plain old synonym for ‘citizen at time of birth’ and THAT is clearly defined in US law to precise degrees ... which is why you are quoting a foreigner to make your case, because you cant quote US law or any US judicial opinion!
Stop trying to cite foreign law in our courts.