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

To: highball
The child is under jurisdiction, as the child has not committed any crime or shown himself to be a criminal.

Respectfully, why do you suppose the framers included that phrase about jurisdiction? Using your logic they were wasted words because every baby born on our soil would be under our jurisdiction. If it doesn't mean anything why did they bother to specify TWO conditions for birthright citizenship.

I am not trying to take away the babies birthright. You are trying to give the baby rights that the framers did not intend. Post 86 gives some pretty good clues as to what the framers might have meant.

205 posted on 11/04/2005 9:44:49 AM PST by jackbenimble (Import the third world, become the third world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]


To: jackbenimble

"Respectfully, why do you suppose the framers included that phrase about jurisdiction?"

Because the Indian tribes were still in possession of half of the land of the United States, and were born within the United States, but they were still their own nations, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And nobody wanted to make the Sioux and the Apache citizens by the amendment.
That's why.
Same bit about "indians not taxed" being excluded from the Census in the Constitution of 1787.


234 posted on 11/04/2005 10:21:19 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | 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