Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/15/2026 8:26:32 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship as we have known it. The court’s eventual opinion in the case, Trump v. Barbara, will almost certainly hinge on how the justices interpret the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The court will probably also respond to the first words of the president’s March 19 brief, which asserts that “The ‘main object’ of the Citizenship Clause was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children.” That is a polite version of a more informal claim he has made elsewhere, that birthright citizenship was intended only for “the babies of slaves.”
However the court decides, history shows that Mr. Trump is wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
We all know that a British Subject is subject to the jurisdiction therof of the British Government. It's that simple.
At the debates, this simplicity was exposed. Senator Howard made no bones about jurisdiction and that Indians who were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes, not the U.S., were foreign agents.
It's that clear. Citizenship grants were only for black people in the 14th Amendment, nobody else.
100% of the people who see this will have no problem understanding how easy this is:
A British Subject is subject to the jurisdiction therof of the British Government. If you are really having a challenge with this concept, press reply as fast as you can and tell us all about it.
A British Subject is subject to the jurisdiction therof of the British Government.
Nobody has a problem understanding this above sentence. You don’t have a problem understanding it either.
Technically that is correct. It was also for people whose parents wanted to become Americans but were prevented to do so because of Democrats.
I could go with that as there is probably a bit of truth in it.
The fact is, when they met to debate/create the 14th Amendment they met with one very specific goal in mind. It had broad undertones but the focal point was almost exclusively black people and related to black people, and at the debates, they used the very specific word “freedmen”.
It was all about the freedmen. That was the problem they got together to solve.
And that’s why Trump is correct. Children of slaves.(and of course the former slaves[Freedmen] themselves also.)
NYT. That is all I needed to know that they would get it wrong.
Heh, I like the way you put that! Well done!
As a rule of thumb I treat the NY Times as a
Democrat party mouthpiece.
I only skim through it to understand what my enemy
is spewing.
Party Democrats are MY ENEMY!
I would rather have a CCP party member
over for a barbecue, than a Democrat Party
member.
One speaks truth, the other lies.
The NY Slimes is wrong. Illegals who come here have allegiance to the country they left until they swear an oath to renounce that allegiance when they become American citizens. Up until that time, their children are not natural born citizens, and only become citizens once their parent takes that oath. Slaves were brought to the U.S. against their will. Illegals deliberate broke laws to come here, and continue to break those laws as long as they stay here. It doesn't matter how long they stay here, they still owe allegiance to the nation they were born in, until they take the oath of naturalization.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Interesting, so wouldn’t the parents have to legally reside in a state for their newborns to be citizens? How could illegals do that?
I knew it had to be the Tymes.
disregard.
The purpose of the 14th amendment is to create civil rights. I like my God given ones better. 14 was not needed after the “emancipation proclamation. “ which did away with and morally tainted the whole aspect of human ownership in this country. what we have now is the progressive (commie) crap in the 14th amendment being elevated to actual law. The babies of imported slaves (which ended in 1808) were by natural law already citizens, subject to, any of the various states. They were just bound in a legal slavery cartel operated in the southern and allowed in the northern states.
He’s right!
If he’s wrong on it I don’t wanna be right.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.>>> it doesn’t apply to black babies or it would have said so. It creates a new class of citizenship unheard of in 1868.
The progressive communist bilge is due to deliberate misinterpretation of the amendment in question. The same has been done to other amendments preceding this one, particularly those in the whole “Bill of Rights”.
The most problematic amendment has been the Sixteenth, since it destroys part of the original intention of the Constitution and replaces it with the second plank of communism, which reads: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
Mother to child: "Stop. Don't put that mouthpiece in your mouth. You don't know where it's been."
The discussions in congress specifically addressing how this would exclude indians is particularly insightful into the intended limits of this amendment and what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof means.”
Given statements that this langauge would exclude indians, “subject to the jurisdiction” cannot merely mean under the control of the law as indians were clearly under the control of US law. This exclusion starts to practically point to the fact that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires some level of exclusiveness of allegiance.
With how the 14th was applied in the late 1800’s, this “indian argument” isn’t wholly dispositive, but pushes the decision into the gray area where there are originalist principles that cut both ways. Given the reality that birthright citizenship raises questions about whether the US can continue to exist or citizenship is a mere party favor, the arguments cutting both ways should provide enough support for any conservative to restrict this practice.
“A British Subject is subject to the jurisdiction therof of the British Government.”
Is a British Subject still “subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the British Government” if said subject moves to another country and decides he is no longer a British Subject”?
Who determines the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” status of an individual?
If an individual flees a country as a refugee is the individual still subject to the jurisdiction of that country? Must such individual be returned to the country from which he fled on demand of that country because they claim jurisdiction even though the refugee sought to remove himself from that jurisdiction?
CCP members don’t speak truth.
In private (not formally published) Democratic Party polling:
Naturalized USA citizens consistently vote 70%-80% for the Democratic Party.
First generation USA born citizens consistently vote 65%-75% for the Democratic Party.
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.