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. |
What will the Supreme Court say?
It’s amazing the number of times the fate of the nation depends on courts divining the meaning of one simple word.
As always, scotus will split the baby. They’ll deny tourism citizenship but will accept citizenship of illegals born here if parents show evidence of having worked here. I have no idea how they’ll expect such a thing to be documented since it’s illegal.
I’m a scholar of the Constitution. “Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats. This argument put forth by the President is basically a non-starter.
It amazes me how people cannot seem to grasp this very simple, obvious point. Or more likely, they deliberately do so for their own ends.
(Not saying that to anybody in particular, but we all know what I mean.)
Maybe that was the predicate in the 1700’s, but they probably weren’t thinking of millions of people just walking in to set up shop and apply for free stuff. That would have been inconceivable.
It means what it plainly says and says what it simply means
Not YOUR idea of “ simply means”
You do violence to the text and pulled your opinion from the penumbra of your “ scholarly” rectal emanation I suspect
I could be wrong
But I doubt it
if parents show evidence of having worked here. I have no idea how they’ll expect such a thing to be documented since it’s illegal.>>>They would probably say that working here is setting up a domicile.
(I have the same complaint about The Bible. One of my biggest turnoffs is when the preacher says "What did God / Jesus mean by that...?".)
Haha, FR is full of “scholars”. Just ask them. Experts one and all.
The offspring born here of parents who are not U.S. citizens are not natural-born U.S. citizens.
Wrong
No, you're not. No scholar would begin that way.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats. This argument put forth by the President is basically a non-starter.
That list was offered by Senator Howard for example purposes. It was not definitive. One is best served by the definition of "subject" in the Bouvier Law Dictionary of 1856.
Some of us are Miscellaneous Experts who have developed expertise in numerous fields merely by being.
Some time after say 70 or 71, the pent up expertise and wisdom just begins to bubble up and out.
“...They’ll deny tourism citizenship but will accept citizenship of illegals born here...”
Ironic, if correct; the tourist has permission be in the country while the invader does not.
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.