The 14th identifies three classes of people.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
14th...

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So we have CITIZENS, who no State may make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges of immunities of Citizens of the United States.

We have ANY PERSONS, who no State shall deprive of Life, Liberty or Property without Due Process.

and we have PERSONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, in which no State shall deny the equal protection of the laws.

Our Constitution has certain enumerated rights for Citizens, certain enumerated rights for ALL PEOPLE, and certain enumerated rights for any person within its jurisdiction.
 
Jarod said:
14th...

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So we have CITIZENS, who no State may make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges of immunities of Citizens of the United States.

We have ANY PERSONS, who no State shall deprive of Life, Liberty or Property without Due Process.

and we have PERSONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, in which no State shall deny the equal protection of the laws.

Our Constitution has certain enumerated rights for Citizens, certain enumerated rights for ALL PEOPLE, and certain enumerated rights for any person within its jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
It says STATE ....
 
Jarod said:
14th...

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So we have CITIZENS, who no State may make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges of immunities of Citizens of the United States.

We have ANY PERSONS, who no State shall deprive of Life, Liberty or Property without Due Process.

and we have PERSONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, in which no State shall deny the equal protection of the laws.

Our Constitution has certain enumerated rights for Citizens, certain enumerated rights for ALL PEOPLE, and certain enumerated rights for any person within its jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Why did you change the wording of “subject to the jurisdiction” to “within the jurisdiction”? Surely you don’t think they mean the same thing? They clearly do not and “subject to the jurisdiction” is the operative clause in the 14th.

Are you saying anyone who has ever visitors the United States is an automatic citizen? The mere act of crossing the border connotes citizenship? Is that what you are saying the 14th Amendment was designed to do?

The questions don’t get easier
 
Teflon Don said:
Why did you change the wording of “subject to the jurisdiction” to “within the jurisdiction”? Surely you don’t think they mean the same thing? They clearly do not and “subject to the jurisdiction” is the operative clause in the 14th.

Are you saying anyone who has ever visitors the United States is an automatic citizen? The mere act of crossing the border connotes citizenship? Is that what you are saying the 14th Amendment was designed to do?

The questions don’t get easier
Click to expand...
I did not change anything... That is how it reads.

There are different protections for each of these three categories.
 
The States cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens.
All People within the jurisdiction get due process of the laws.
Any Person gets equal protection of our law.
 
Teflon Don said:
Why did you change the wording of “subject to the jurisdiction” to “within the jurisdiction”? Surely you don’t think they mean the same thing? They clearly do not and “subject to the jurisdiction” is the operative clause in the 14th.

Are you saying anyone who has ever visitors the United States is an automatic citizen? The mere act of crossing the border connotes citizenship? Is that what you are saying the 14th Amendment was designed to do?

The questions don’t get easier
Click to expand...
Illegal immigrants are subject to serving in the military of their home country and not in ours. Most can vote in their countries but not in ours. They can legally reside in their country but not ours. The term subject to our jurisdiction clearly means American citizens that can be conscripted to defend this country. And citizens that have a vote in how this country is to be ran. Native Americans were not American citizens even if they were born off the reservation prior to passing of the Snyder Act in 1925. So from the passing of the 14th Amendment to 1925 NATIVE AMERICANS were not considered American citizens because they owe allegiance to their nation just like a Guatemalan does to his country today. The Supreme Court looked into the issue of Indian citizenship in Elk v Wilkins. The Supreme Court ruled Elk was not an American citizen. Mind you that the 14th was passed 26 years before and John Bingham its author was still alive. Not a peep from him saying Native Americans were American citizens.
 
Jarod said:
The States cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens.
All People within the jurisdiction get due process of the laws.
Any Person gets equal protection of our law.
Click to expand...
And our laws say the President and the SOS can expel enemies of the state.
 
Jarod said:
The States cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens.
All People within the jurisdiction get due process of the laws.
Any Person gets equal protection of our law.
Click to expand...

The persons in question must be both born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

you are guilty of activism trying to change the intent to be something it was not
 
Jarod said:
The States cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens.
All People within the jurisdiction get due process of the laws.
Any Person gets equal protection of our law.
Click to expand...
"Subject to the jurisdiction" does not mean the same thing as "within the jurisdiction". If it did, any person invading the nation during a war could have a kid that was a citizen, or foreign diplomats... Neither of which are true.

I believe that trump calls then invaders and the left fights that phraseology solely because they both understand what "subject to the jurisdiction" actually means.
 
Jarod said:
I did not change anything... That is how it reads.

There are different protections for each of these three categories.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The exact wording is “subject to the jurisdiction of”. It does not say “within the jurisdiction”

You originally typed subject to. The. At the end said within. You are either stupid or trying to play fast and loose with the language. Which is it?
 
Teflon Don said:
Incorrect. The exact wording is “subject to the jurisdiction of”. It does not say “within the jurisdiction”

You originally typed subject to. The. At the end said within. You are either stupid or trying to play fast and loose with the language. Which is it?
Click to expand...
You are confusing two different parts of the amendment
 
Damocles said:
"Subject to the jurisdiction" does not mean the same thing as "within the jurisdiction". If it did, any person invading the nation during a war could have a kid that was a citizen, or foreign diplomats... Neither of which are true.

I believe that trump calls then invaders and the left fights that phraseology solely because they both understand what "subject to the jurisdiction" actually means.
Click to expand...
More are within than subject to..

But you are correct I used the wrong word.
 
Jarod said:
14th...

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So we have CITIZENS, who no State may make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges of immunities of Citizens of the United States.

We have ANY PERSONS, who no State shall deprive of Life, Liberty or Property without Due Process.

and we have PERSONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, in which no State shall deny the equal protection of the laws.

Our Constitution has certain enumerated rights for Citizens, certain enumerated rights for ALL PEOPLE, and certain enumerated rights for any person within its jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

You're terrified that the SCOTUS will strike down anchor babies - as you should be.


The four leftists and the four conservatives are set - with Barrett the wildcard.
 
Jarod said:
14th...

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So we have CITIZENS, who no State may make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges of immunities of Citizens of the United States.

We have ANY PERSONS, who no State shall deprive of Life, Liberty or Property without Due Process.

and we have PERSONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, in which no State shall deny the equal protection of the laws.

Our Constitution has certain enumerated rights for Citizens, certain enumerated rights for ALL PEOPLE, and certain enumerated rights for any person within its jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

That is basic American Constitutional law. Why does it so confuse Reichwingers?
 
Jarod said:
More are within than subject to..

But you are correct I used the wrong word.
Click to expand...

Without anchor babies - the entire "erase and replace" plot your filthy party is engaged in falls apart - and America remains America.

You better work on Barrett,

Maybe she is as easily corrupted as Roberts? Some insider trading and being invited to the Hollywood parties? That's all it took for him - maybe she is just as weak?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Without anchor babies - the entire "erase and replace" plot your filthy party is engaged in falls apart - and America remains America.

You better work on Barrett,

Maybe she is as easily corrupted as Roberts? Some insider trading and being invited to the Hollywood parties? That's all it took for him - maybe she is just as weak?
Click to expand...
Cocktail parties on Martha's Vineyard helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top