Posted on 11/12/2005 6:52:36 AM PST by Crackingham
If a pregnant women breaks into your hose to steal something, but then gives birth in your living room, does that make the baby part of your family (and your financial responsibility)?
That may be your own view, but it doesn't square with your interpretation of "subject to".
Being brought to this country does not automatically make you an American citizen (eg. African-born slaves).
Not in and of itself. But the laws definitely did strip them of their former citizenship.
After all, the amendment doesn't explicitly say that "born" and "subject to" have to be concurrent, and therefore it is a matter of judicial interpretation.
There's no room for judicial interpretation there. If they had meant, born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., then that's all they would have said: "All persons born or naturalized subject to [or "under", or "within"] the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens...." It would have gotten across the same point without unnecessary extra verbiage. They clearly are saying, all persons who were born in the U.S., and are subject to its jurisdiction.
Ok, but I'm logging off after this...
"Subject to jurisdiction" means that you must comply with local laws or face the consequences. And that's the case no matter what citizenship you are. Even if you're an illegal alien. If we don't want illegal aliens to be subject to our jurisdiction (in order to deny their children the Consititional right of citizenship), then we need to pass a law to that effect. But again, that would result in a huge class of undocumented persons who could break laws with impunity, and would only face deportation as a consequence -- which is why it's never been done.
WHAT LAWS STRIPPED SLAVES OF THEIR FORMER CITIZENSHIP??? So far, no-one here has explained this. NO COUNTRY CAN STRIP A PERSON OF ITS CITIZENSHIP OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. A country can choose to GIVE YOU citizenship, and they can require you to renounce your former citizenship in exchange for the privilege, but they CANNOT TAKE AWAY what they didn't give in the first place if you don't want them to. And by what mechanism did the U.S. give citizenship to slaves not born here who did not subsequently apply for naturalization (thus, at the time, renouncing former allegiances)? SHOW ME THE LAW. So there must have been many children of slaves whose parents or other forebears were never U.S. citizens (because no such laws existed), who were born here, and were not diplomatically immune. In fact, this would have been the vast preponderance of the people of African origin who were granted citizenship by this Amendment.
So what you're saying is that anyone born here, no matter what the citizenship of his or her parents, who is not diplomatically immune is a citizen. I'm so glad we agree.
The one that made slaves the personal property of their owners. Once they're made property, they're stripped of the legal rights that normally pertain to free persons, including the right to be regarded as a citizen of any country. And in most cases, they were regarded as slaves even in their home countries, or were at least taken with the connivance of local leaders. So that would mean that even those home countries don't regard them as citizens.
And by what mechanism did the U.S. give citizenship to slaves not born here who did not subsequently apply for naturalization (thus, at the time, renouncing former allegiances)?
We're talking 1868 here, six decades after the foreign slave trade was cut off. There weren't going to be that many people of that description at that time. I suppose if someone wanted to challenge their U.S. citizenship on that basis, that might theoretically be possible. However, even if it's shown that they weren't U.S. citizens, it still wouldn't make them citizens of whatever country they were taken from. Legally, that citizenship was dissolved when they were made slaves.
So what you're saying is that anyone born here, no matter what the citizenship of his or her parents, who is not diplomatically immune is a citizen.
No, if the parents are considered aliens by our laws, and have not declared their intention to renounce their citizenship or allegiance to any other nation, then their children are just as alien as the parents.
Pretty much. However, I forgot to add an important distinction: Congress could at will redefine the status of children born overseas. There is no constitutinoal provision there. However, the 14th Amendment is concrete.
Just because the Constitution is silent on a specific matter is NOT assent for Congress to act; indeed, quite the contrary. Congress only has the powers that the Constitution specifically enumerates. Congress does have the Constitutional power to naturalize the child, but as far as I know naturalization applies only upon the birthdate of majority.
Prospectively, anyway, not retrospectively.
As far as I know, virtually all slaves were taken from lands not recognized as pertaining to any country. Therefore they had no prior citizenship. They were regarded as legally equivalent to animals, IOW private property.
I just finished reading the floor debate of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And many of these arguments came up during that debate. Senator Doolittle of Pennsylvania was concerned that the Amendment as written would include the children of that pernicious race, Gypsies. And children of Chinese immigrants in California, even though their parents were at the time prohibited by law from becoming citizens, and indeed were still citizens of the Celestial Empire. And California Senator Conness basically said, -- Yeah, what of it? What do you know about the Chinese in California, anyway? I don't have a problem with that -- And he went on to say that he had voted for a California "proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States."
And no amendment to the Amendment to ensure that children of non-citizens (never mind even children of persons who were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by law from becoming naturalized citizens) came out of this discussion.
And then there was a long debate about whether it includes Indians who live on reservations, who were subject to the laws of reservations, and were not ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of being prosecuted for crimes on the reservation. And so there was a proposal to clarify the Amendment by substituting the words from the recently passed Civil Rights Act, to exclude "Indians not taxed", in order to distinguish them from rich Indians who lived under the jurisdiction of the United States, and not on reservations, who would get citizenship. And other Senators argued that the United States did indeed have jurisdiction over the reservations just by virtue of being able to exercise it if it chose to.
And Senator Saulsbury argued that he was going to vote against the amendment to the Amendment, because while "I do not presume that anyone will pretend to disguise the fact that the object of this first section is simply to declare that negroes shall be citizens of the United States" he could not in good conscience vote on the proposed amendment to the Amendment because "if these negroes are to be made citizens of the United States, I can see no reason in justice or in right why the Indians shold not be made citizens." And that Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment WAS DEFEATED, 30-10 (9 absent).
So the senators who voted NOT to change the Fourteenth Amendment, understood it to include: Negroes, Chinese, Gypsies, and Indians. Or at least, they understood it to be broad enough to be interpreted that way. [Note that it never even appeared to cross anyone's mind that white European people should be ineligible under this Amendment, even though there were surely plenty of "undocumented" Europeans at the time.]
The unfortunate fact about the 14th amendment is that a lot of Congressmen were themselves unsure of what they were voting on. But one would think that the ones who introduced the language would have a slightly better idea of what they were saying, then the ones to whom it was being presented, and who wanted to use the opportunity to soapbox about whatever it was they wanted to talk about.
Not legally possible. A citizen of any type is, by its nature and artificial or 'political' construction. Artificial constructions have NO rights, only privileges granted by the entity from which they've sprung. Logic dictates that the only thing a political subdivision (or 'legal entity') can create is another of its own kind.
A US citizen is an artificial construction of the statutory 'state', and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of federal statutory law.
A State citizen is a civil entity under the civil authority of the State. This entity, while not quite human, is protected by the legally binding contract between the States a.k.a. the Constitution.
Natural persons, or residents, are human beings. Unlike artificial creations under 'positive' law, we are subject to natural or 'common' law. The two types of law cannot be mixed. Attempting to do so would be removing the restraints on government so carefully placed there by the Founders and rode the very foundation of the Republic.
What the 14th Amendment attempts to do is create legal entities for everyone without knowledge, consent or full disclosure....the three necessary ingredients for a legally binding contract. This is an illegal act known as an assumption of power and is, from its inception, null and void.
Don't take my word for it. Here are a few court decisions:
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
______________________________________________________________________
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
According to your logic, the Constitution would only apply to Washington DC and Federal property. Clearly, that is not the case.
No that is EXACTLY the case. The states created the federal government, and that which you create, you have the right to control. The only power the federal government has over the states is in the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. The federal government has ZERO authority to determine its own jurisdiction or to create anything for anyone.
________________________________________________________
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
________________________________________________________
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.
________________________________________________________
Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
________________________________________________________
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782
________________________________________________________
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
________________________________________________________
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
________________________________________________________
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public Klement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.