Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jack Black
Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment must have had something in mind to write it the way they did.
16 posted on 02/17/2004 8:27:48 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: coloradan
Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

someone who renounces citizenship and resides elsewhere. For me the issue is not jurisdiction because I think unlike the place of birth, jurisdiction is changeable. I think the issue is at then end of the sentence which requires "residence". Its clear that a child born here while its parents are visiting isn't in any sense a resident.

19 posted on 02/17/2004 8:47:38 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: coloradan
The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment must have had something in mind to write it the way they did.

They had in mind the following: members of American Indian Tribes, while on tribal land, provided the Tribe had status as an independent, sovereign nation; persons in the US under diplomatic immunity. Those are the only persons within the country's borders who were not (at the time the Ammendment was written) legally obligated to subject themselves to Federal sovereignty over their persons. Such persons, if brought before a Federal magistrate, could rightfully argue that the court had no jurisdiction over them.

20 posted on 02/17/2004 8:59:33 PM PST by sourcery (This is your country. This is your country under socialism. Any questions? Just say no to Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: coloradan
Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment must have had something in mind to write it the way they did.

In reading over the various quotes and comments on this thread, it appears to me that the most reasonable interpretation of that clause is that it was intended to specifically exclude persons born within the physical boundaries of the US but in areas not under its jurisdiction. For example, persons born within foreign embassies (which are considered extraterritorial and under the jurisdictions of other nations) and persons born within Indian tribal reservations (which were not considered within the formal jurisdiction of the US).

That would explain the 1868 quote by Senator Howard referring to "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers", and it would explain the Supreme Court's actions with regard to John Elk. It is not the only possible explanation, but it is certainly a plausible explanation -- one which remains consistent with the long-standing historical interpretation that any baby born in the US is automatically a citizen.

41 posted on 02/17/2004 11:52:06 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: coloradan
Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Just about everyone.

Go to the Code of Federal Regulations and look up the definition of United States. The majority of the time, it's defined as Washington D.C., American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Alaska and Hawaii before they became states.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Anything inside that geographic limitation and with the exception of property OWNED by the Federal government in other states is all the 'United States' consists of. Everything else is just a 'State' and should be populated with AMERICAN NATIONALS not 'United States Citizens'.

54 posted on 02/18/2004 7:03:45 AM PST by MamaTexan (Is anyone obligated to obey an unconstitutional government?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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