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.
stating it another way adds clarity:
all persons born in the United states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
AND
all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
The 14th amendment makes note of two classes of citizens here: citizens born of the soil and citizens created by an act of naturalization or citizens of other than the soil and it says that they are both citizens of the United States But, importantly, nowhere does its language specifically act upon article II, section I, clause 5 by making mention of a Natural Born Citizen which it surely must do if it intends to affect Article II, section I, clause 5.
In fact, the 14th amendment has validated the opinion that a citizen not born of the soil, is not a Natural Born Citizen by specifically calling such a person a citizen as opposed to a Natural Born Citizen, for our founders and the authors of the 14th amendment perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and we can assume that no words adopted into the constitution were either used or omitted without intent or perfect understanding.
By omitting the words Natural Born Citizen, the meaning of which the authors were perfectly familiar with they have acknowledged that a citizen not born in the United states is not a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as POTUS.
It will no doubt be mentioned that it also calls a Citizen by right of Soil a Citizen. But there is no discrepancy here as a Natural Born Citizen clearly is, by default, a citizen. A citizen, on the other hand, is not by default, a Natural Born Citizen.
It is also worth making note of the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
From United States v. Wong Kim Ark, we know what this means. It refers to full and unencumbered allegiance to the sovereign i.e. the United States. In this way, the children of foreign ambassadors who, through, happenstance, are born on US soil while their parents are acting in an official capacity of a foreign sovereignty, are not held to be citizens of the United states at the time of their birth upon US soil.
So, in summary, article 2, section 1, clause 5 specifically denies the right to be POTUS to any but a Natural Born Citizen and the 14th amendment does not act to amend that.
We are, again, left to the historical records and common law understandings to ascertain what Article II, section I, clause 5 was referring to.
I have already shown that natural born citizenship is derived from the common law understanding and language and that it specifically refers to persons physically born in the country and that the Katyal and Clement paper that Ted Cruz bases his own opinion on misrepresents the common law understanding by using a few ancient and limited statutory references as being indicative of the common law understanding in its entirety.
There is ample evidence throughout United States v. Wong Kim Ark to confirm this and I have stated much of it already. So let us go back further, closer to the time of the adoption of the constitution, closer to a time when common law understandings were better understood by all Americans.
we see clear evidence of this Jus soli basis of natural born citizenship in Justice Curtis's dissenting opinion in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision whereby he states:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Again, as in United States v. Wong Kim Ark we see the clear truth of the matter. Our founders perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and had a perfect and specific understanding of what it meant to be a Natural Born Citizen: it was a person born in the country and they, for good reason, intended that none but such a person would be eligible for the office of President and they incorporated that intent into the constitution. No Act of congress can change this. No judicial hearing can change this. No statement by Ted Cruz or his supporters can change this. Only a constitutional amendment can change this.
I would put that another way and already have, multiple times. There are not three classes in that statement.
There is not a carve out for a child of a American citizen born abroad to be naturalized, nor is there any wording to say that jurisdiction ends at out border for a US citizen.
The term citizen is the same as subject. Subjects or citizens do not lose their rights or status when abroad for any reason, unless they have given up those rights or changed allegiances. Therefore jurisdiction applies to them as well and does not mean a "Place" in every case..
If it did, we would have a statute requiring naturalization for the foreign born of a natural born citizen and we do not, do we..But we have plenty of items mentioned in out naturalization statutes that have grown over the years.
Using the 14th as a guide, one can argue what it says, or what it does not say. It does not say that jurisdiction ends at the border, and it says there are two classes and not three.
If the Mother of Ted Cruz gave up her US class, then I would like to see it or some evidence of it. There being none to offer, she was still under the jurisdiction of the US when she had that child. That child was automatically of the same class as she.
And then there is this!
Expatriation on or after June 17, 2008
If you expatriated on or after June 17, 2008, the new IRC 877A expatriation rules apply to you if any of the following statements apply. Your average annual net income tax for the 5 years ending before the date of expatriation or termination of residency is more than a specified amount that is adjusted for inflation ($147,000 for 2011, $151,000 for 2012, $155,000 for 2013 and $157,000 for 2014).
Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation or termination of residency.
You fail to certify on Form 8854 that you have complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the 5 years preceding the date of your expatriation or termination of residency. If any of these rules apply, you are a “covered expatriate.â€
Talk about cross border jurisdiction!
Tell me how Citizen differs from Subject, as many have done already.
Were are subject to this and to that and to anything they come up with, especially is you have deep pockets.
The colonists simply did not like the term because it brought forth vivid memories, but as we can see, there really is no fantasy citizen relationship with the jurisdiction the government has claimed and has exploited.
The people are not doing this, the government is. So much for the fantasy of a government subject to the people.
I could write so much more, but the jurisdiction argument got me lit up...