Posted on 08/08/2025 5:08:47 AM PDT by MtnClimber
I have been getting just enough email about “birthright citizenship” to suggest that there are some key misunderstandings about the concept and the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment to make one more exploration of the idea worthwhile. So as your resident “splainer,” I’ll try to ‘splain it for you.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. It was the final product of a process that Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull began in 1866. His Civil Rights Act of 1866 stated that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power…are hereby declared citizens of the United States…”
President Andrew Johnson didn’t like the bill, so he vetoed it, but Congress overrode his veto. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the language very slightly to “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but it kept that all-important conjunction, which I’ve highlighted.
That three-letter word means that there are two (another three-letter word) conditions that have to be met. They aren’t the same thing. That three-letter conjunction is the source of all the legal arguments. So that you can clearly understand it, let’s look at a unanimous Second Amendment decision called Caetano v. Massachusetts.
The Caetano case dealt with a lady who protected herself from an abusive boyfriend by acquiring a stun gun (similar to a Taser). The Supreme Court ruled that for Massachusetts to ban her stun gun, it had to be both dangerous and unusual. There’s that little three-letter “and” word again.
The state could ban it only if both conditions were met. Matching one wasn’t enough. If it was unusual but not dangerous, sorry, Charlie. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Your statute goes directly to Second Amendment jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Actually the important words are “under the jurisdiction” not “and”.
“Under the jurisdiction” means you are subject to the laws of that country.
So the question is, is someone, regardless of his status” who happens to be in the US, subject to our laws?
As far as I know, they are. If someone, regardless of his status, breaks a law they are subject to its enforcement.
So the problem is in the wording of the amendment.
A better wording would have been: “anyone born in the US of a LEGAL resident of the US, is a citizen of the US”. Then you don’t even need the “under the jurisdiction” clause.
I agree my expectation is not in the constitution. I don’t expect the constitution to constrain roberts at all, and this is a feelers issue for the girls, so amy will go with the girls club on this one.
Totally agree,but when has that ever been an issue?
He just pulled it out of his ass.
Interestingly, an illegal alien who has no contact with the US government and is working under the table would not be a subject, and is not under the jurisdiction of the United States. However, if that alien has been convicted of a crime and is in prison, then technically, until he is released and deported, he would be subject to the jurisdiction.
So in order for an illegal alien to give birth to a citizen, the illegal alien would have to be in prison when the child is born.
So technically, there is a loophole.
It means what it means, if you’re a citizen of another country then the child does not become a citizen of the US.
That’s it.
....
And if the Swamp chooses to rule otherwise, adding to its long train of abuses and usurpations, the People always have 1776 as an option.
THAT IS A BULL CRAP SOLUTION
NOT ACCEPTABLE
THE PARENTS WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EMPLOYED AT ALL>>>>>
IF THAT IS WHAT THEY MEANT—IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED-—IN BLACK & WHITE
That’s hysterical in its own weird way.
It’s not a solution. It’s what i think scotus will do.
THANK YOU
THANK YOU
THANK YOU
This is where scholars and jurists step in to interpret the meaning. Think of it this way: if someone is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then that would also include the laws that state they can’t be here in the first place. QED.
.
This one will be much harder because it has three letters in it.
More proof that Charlie Kirk is right, college is a scam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.