Ed Meese and John Eastman made the clear distinction between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction that Napolitano is either unware of or unwilling to acknowledge.
Since territorial jurisdiction is taken as a given, then due to basic rules of construction in law, a redundant phrase is not necessary. Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” must refer to political jurisdiction, not territorial.
That in fact this is the case is made clear by the Congressional Record of the debates over the 14th Amendment.
Napolitano is letting his Libertarian views get in the way of cogent legal reasoning.
That is a stupid argument. Illegals can't be drafted, called to jury duty and can be deported. Foreign spies can be arrested and imprisoned or executed but that doesn't make them citizens.
Napolitano frequently doesn't know what he's talking about, and neither do you if you agree with him.
I agree. Why is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” there if it applies to everyone on U.S. soil? How are children born to citizens not on U.S. soil covered? Plus suppose a foreigner comes to the U.S. and has a child but doesn’t want their child to be a citizen. Can the U.S. compel that child to register for the draft and pay taxes? Citizenship by geography alone being the default seems nonsensical and actually a violation of the person’s rights. What if China had such a rule and I was born there accidentally. There’s no way I want that government having any jurisdiction over me.
This issue of subject to the jurisdiction thereof seldom came up in Judge Napolitano’s Traffic Court.
The term is somewhat archaic, and refers to the individual who is a subject of a monarch or sovereign. If those individuals were living in the U.S., they could be prosecuted for criminal activity, but they did not enjoy the privileges of subjects (we used the term citizens). This clause applied to diplomats, members of Indian tribes, and foreigners who were temporarily in the U.S. No one contemplated illegal aliens living in our country for the purposes of giving birth to children who became citizens.
This particular issue has never been challenged and adjudicated in the Supreme Court. Don’t believe anyone who has come within 100 miles of the Nation’s Capital.
The opponents of the Amendment, during the Senate ratification hearings, argued that the citizenship clause would be interpreted exactly as it has been since the mid 1960s. The authors defended against that claim by explaining that “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not subject to anyone else’s jurisdiction,” “having exclusive jurisdiction.” The Senate ratified the Amendment only because the Senate was convinced that the citizenship clause was not a general grant of citizenship to the children of most aliens / foreigners born in the United States. The states then ratified it based on that same understanding.
So if your stance is that original intent is the only correct interpretative paradigm—as most libertarians do in general, and as Judge Napolitano does in particular—then he’s going against his own principles here.
The only option applicable to a criminal diplomat is to return them to their country. No tickets, no criminal charges, no lawsuits apply with diplomatic immunity. They can kill someone and subsequently will be returned to their home country. Alternatively law enforcement officers could intervene and kill the diplomat in disrupting an attack.
Napolitano is a sophist; he knows his interpretation is false. I give him 5 Clintons for this.
Legal immigrants and legal resident aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US government.
Illegal aliens illegally residing within the US have by definition evaded the jurisdiction of the US government. They are foreign nationals, and have rights to consular access, etc. as such.
Let me simplify for you, as I have studied the civil war amendments since I was maybe 10 and wrote a couple history papers on them in middle, high school and college.
You are subject to the jurisdiction if you are a lawful resident or citizen.
For instance Kamala Harris parents were lawful residents when she was born Oakland, CA making a Native Born American, as her parents did not become citizens until several years after her birth
A bit of a nonsequitor but, I like to point that out, should ever pretend to run for president or vice president
Post on and maybe I’ll continue the discussion with
, and Judge Napolitano is flat-out wrong
Or senile
The test as to whether or not you are “Under the Jurisdiction of” is simple:
Can you be Tried for Treason??
YES- You are under the Jurisdiction of
NO- YOU ARE NOT!!!
Only Citizens can be tried for Treason