What "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" Really Means

The Federalist Blog ^ | 9/22/2007 & 11/7/2008 | P.A. Madison

[unspun]

More constitutional analysis that indicates:

Strict constructionism, considering original intent and the most applicable aspects of related legal, historical, and philosophicl context requires that Barack H. Obama II is not allowed to be United States President.

(Starwise, you have a ping list that I am not using.)

[April Lexington]

Excellent work!

[unspun]

Admin, could you do us the big favor of removing the nasty code where the quotes should be, please?

Excellent work!

Maybe place a comment on Madison's site and tell him!   ;-)

[unspun]

More constitutional analysis that indicates:

By Article 2, strict constructionism, considering original intent and the most applicable aspects of related legal, historical, and philosophicl context requires that Barack H. Obama II is not allowed to be United States President

All over again, we will see whether we have a SCOTUS with a constitutional backbone.

Happy Thanksgiving

[unspun]

More constitutional analysis that indicates:

By Article 2, strict constructionism, considering original intent and the most applicable aspects of related legal, historical, and philosophicl context requires that Barack H. Obama II is not allowed to be United States President

All over again, we will see whether we have a SCOTUS with a constitutional backbone.

Happy Thanksgiving

[wastoute]

bump

[autumnraine]

LucyT has a good ping list.

[Uncle Chip]

Congressional Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.” This report had been signed by William Lawrence and James F. Wilson, two significant original Fourteenth Amendment participants. There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between nations.

What more needs to be said. Leo Donofrio is absolutely correct. Obama can keep his sequestered birth certificate. It's his father's British/Kenyan citizenship that disqualifies him from office of POTUS, not just his birthplace of Mombasa, Kenya.

[4integrity]

unspun, thank you. Today, we give thanks for our great country and we pray that it will remain the country that our founders intended.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family!

[smokingfrog]

Thanks for the ping.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[unspun]

unspun, thank you. Today, we give thanks for our great country and we pray that it will remain the country that our founders intended.

Amen!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family!

Amen.

[so_real]

Thanks for the ping. The final outcome is such a no-brainer. The DNC *should* have spent their time and money on an eligible candidate. They did not. Shame on them.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Eastbound]

Subject to the jurisdiction was code talk which originally applied to freed slaves who were granted citizenship by the federal government.

It has come to mean anyone who contracts with the federal government for benefits.

Before the 14th Amendment was ratified, the nation only had one class of Citizen -- spelled with a capital "C", who were subject to the jurisidiction of their individual states and not the federal government.

It's no big secret anymore, for practically everyone has traded their free status "Citizenship" in to the federal government and are now referred to as citizens, lower case "c". Check it out. The U.S. Constitution did not mention 'citizen' until the 14th Amendment -- and since then all amendments have used the word spelled with a lower case 'c'.

Sorry, but it's really that simple. And yes, Virginia, there are two classes of people in America. Congress couldn't use the word 'Citizen' to apply to the free slaves, for it was already defined in the Constitution as a white person. So they went for second best and used the lower case spelling for the free slaves, (and any one else who applied for bennies) which denoted federal jurisdiction.

[calenel]

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

This article states in its second paragraph:

"Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no written national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."

Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the author regarding "national birthright rule" or "national law"; when I take it as a reference to a definition of who is a citizen at birth, but wouldn't these count?

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".

1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).

1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).

1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.

"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

[calenel]

"Before the 14th Amendment was ratified, the nation only had one class of Citizen -- spelled with a capital "C", who were subject to the jurisidiction of their individual states and not the federal government.

"It's no big secret anymore, for practically everyone has traded their free status "Citizenship" in to the federal government and are now referred to as citizens, lower case "c". Check it out. The U.S. Constitution did not mention 'citizen' until the 14th Amendment -- and since then all amendments have used the word spelled with a lower case 'c'."

The capital 'C' versus lower case 'c' distinction is irrelevant. All, or virtually all nouns were capitalized in the COTUS. It was the style. It has gone out of style since and it is now considered proper only for proper nouns.

[djf]

Jurisdiction must - I mean MUST - be understood in terms of the meanings and conditions that the term represents.

Alot of people that used to be part of western civilization and many of the people who came to America were indentured servants.

They were servants. They were under the control and authority of the Lords or whatever who had lent them money or leased them land.

It was common practice for a person to come under total, absolute authority of the king by kissing his ring, or writing his X on a contract, witnessed by another.

JurisDiction means JuratDicti. Jurat is an oath. Dicti means to speak it.

Jurisdiction means an oath spoken.

A free man gives no other man a power over himself by default. He must swear an oath or use some advantage for another to have control over him.
(that’s why contract specifications under the common law must be willingly, voluntarily, and completely knowingly entered into)

[Eastbound]

Well, that clears that up. Thank you. Onward to more intriguing things, like why did Congress accept the new definition by way of an amendment in that case and then allow the court to re-define the word 'marriage' (which also had a legal definition) without a constitutional amendment? (Another topic for another time.)

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I wish I could believe that the SCOTUS would do the right thing, but even before BO packs the court, there are cases like Plyler v. Doe 1981:

The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.