Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Rides3

When Trumbull said “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” his intent was SOLELY to exclude INDIANS, IN TRIBES.

He had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENT WHATSOEVER to exclude children born here of non-citizen parents. Such people were, according to Trumbull’s definition, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Here’s how the issue came about. They started bandying words around that might exclude the Indians in tribes. Someone suggested “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Someone else said, that’s no good, because the Indians, EVEN IN THE TRIBES, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Trumbull replied, NO. I’m not talking about including the “wild” Indians IN INDIAN TRIBES, and that’s not what the words “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” mean. The Indians IN TRIBES may be PARTIALLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are NOT subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States, in the way that anybody participating in our society and under our LAWS is.

Trumbull made it absolutely, CRYSTAL clear that he believed the children born here of NON-CITIZEN parents, of ANY nationality, were born citizens, as long as they were participating in OUR society and not some Indian tribe with its own government.

Including even Indians.

So by Trumbull’s definition, Obama’s parents clearly would have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States.


404 posted on 04/04/2013 5:25:01 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston
When Trumbull said “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” his intent was SOLELY to exclude INDIANS, IN TRIBES.

We know that's not true by reading the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on which the 14th Amendment was based (according to the Senate Judiciary Committee's own website) which refers to both foreign power AND Indians not taxed:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"

The 14th Amendment merely treats Indian and foreign nations the same as in being a power other than the U.S. We know this because instead of stating "not owing allegiance to an Indian Nation," Trumbull INSTEAD said:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Senate Judiciary Committee website that explains the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
History of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
413 posted on 04/04/2013 6:23:59 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Winston
So by Trumbull’s definition, Obama’s parents clearly would have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States.

Would "complete jurisdiction" include the draft?
433 posted on 04/04/2013 8:44:24 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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