My question is that when interpreting the 14th amendment, it is possible to give the legal term -- "jurisdiction"-- a different meaning than its "ordinary" meaning depending on the context? Or is the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment reference to "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" mean physical presence in the US when born? I have not read the cases such as Wong Kim Ark, etc., so I don't know the answer.
14th Amendment jurisdiction is deep voodo. But ultimately, it is CORPORATE jurisdiction, NOT common law, natural human person jurisdiction. In fact, the Bill of Rights without connection to the 14th Amendment is completely different than the Bill of Rights with connection to the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment replaces rights with privileges, and does not legally have to declare it has done so. So rights that have been turned into privileges may, under the same 14th Amendment that changed them, also still be called rights, and by their same name. But they aren't rights anymore - they are government-issued privileges called rights that may be restricted or terminated at any time by that government.
Oh, and the government is not required to define any of this, even if it is applying it in court, law, or administration.
The 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to provide legislative clarification regarding the issue of persons “subject to the jurisdiction”, including how that applies to instances where a person not subject to the jurisdiction is treated when a criminal act is involved. I’m of the opinion that the 14th Amendment was written specifically to address the issue of citizenship, not to address who is “under the jurisdiction” in criminal cases. I also believe that your question has already been answered by the numerous cases of illegal aliens who have been adjudicated in American courts and then returned to their country of origin upon release from jail/prison. I posit that they were deemed not to be under the jurisdiction with respect to citizenship, but were with respect to violating some law.
Wouldn't do any good.
Over time, different Supreme Courts have reached (and justified) opposite decisions for identical cases brought before it. This has happened enough times that it is puzzling why it has not been more thoroughly debated and clarified.
These are huge flaws in our system, akin to the maddening reality that the only way to impeach ( and remove) a corrupt congressperson is by having other congresspersons do it.
What if the "unthinkable" happened and the majority of congresspersons are corrupt and compromised?
Welcome to our current "State of the Union."