Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MtnClimber

The 14th amendment didn’t even include the Indians and I would make the argument that it was because the Indians were not under the “jurisdiction of” due to them belonging to their own nations and basically at war with the rest of the US population. At least the ones in the West.


15 posted on 12/16/2025 7:06:52 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Georgia Girl 2
Agreed. And to the point of freed slaves, the slaves' citizenship status had been subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Why? Because chattel slavery by definition meant babies born to slaves had a slave status, not a citizenship status.

In other words, the 14th Amendment's definition of birth citizenship to people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is saying, "Hey, us, the U.S., not only freed slaves in the 13th Amendment, but we're now saying in this 14th Amendment that they're citizens. How do we have that authority? Because all along we had the authority over their citizenship status. The African nations don't because only God knows which African nations their ancestors were from. Thus, we're in charge (jurisdiction) of their status and we're deciding to let them be citizens too."

20 posted on 12/16/2025 7:16:30 AM PST by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson