T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It means, even in the context you give, exactly what I meant. The 'interpretation' of a law is often asinine and makes no sense.
Birth Right Citizenship case should be announced tomorrow... Predictions?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Jurisdiction now means duties and responsibilities of citizens?
That makes other parts of the Constitution absurd.
Apply your definition to the 13th amendment.
Apply our definition the the second use of the word jurisdiction in the 14th amendment.
Apply your definition to the 18th amendment. How can US territory be a citizen?
Your interpretation is an ass, an idiot.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It's a two-way street. Jurisdiction comes with responsibilities.
For example, from your list, persons born in US territories are not citizens of the US, but rather US nationals. They have the right to reside in the US but don't have the full privileges and duties of a citizen. For example, they cannot vote in federal elections. They can apply for citizenship.
Citizenship status in territories of the United States
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
The 13th amendment ended slavery and involuntary servitude. It didn't say anything about citizenship or who was a citizen of the US.
They are,for obvious reasons, a special case.
The 13th amendment uses the words subject to their jurisdiction.It's a two-way street. Jurisdiction comes with responsibilities.
For example, from your list, persons born in US territories are not citizens of the US, but rather US nationals. They have the right to reside in the US but don't have the full privileges and duties of a citizen. For example, they cannot vote in federal elections. They can apply for citizenship.
Citizenship status in territories of the United States
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politicsballotpedia.org
The 13th amendment ended slavery and involuntary servitude. It didn't say anything about citizenship or who was a citizen of the US.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
How can a place be subject to the duties and responsibilities of a citizen?
The 18th amendment uses the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
How can all territory be subject to the duties and responsibilities of a citizen?
Subject to jurisdiction must mean subject to legal control or subject to the law to make any sense.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
That was put there to clearly mean areas of the United States not subject to the earlier Emancipation Proclamation.
US territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the US and yet the people born there are not US citizens.
As above. US territories were subject to the jurisdiction of the US but that doesn't mean that all laws apply to them.
They aren't. Territories of the US get some of the benefits of being part of the US but not everything, citizenship is not included.
You just don't get it. It doesn't mean it's all inclusive, nor does it mean that every law is applied the same way everywhere. There are exceptions and differences. On a US military base for example, members of the military are subject to the UCMJ not civilian federal law. Civilians on that same base are not subject to the UCMJ and are subject to federal civilian law.
Do you even know how the English language works?
Places are subject to the jurisdiction.
Territories are subject to the jurisdiction.
People are subject to the jurisdiction.
The words subject to the jurisdiction must mean the same thing and make sense when applied to places, territories and persons. If those words don't mean the same thing then you have introduced absurdity.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You are now tossing that word around like some sort of legal panacea. You've said nothing substantive in that post, just tossed the word "jurisdiction" in the same vein as "due process" has been used lately. You cheapen words to meaninglessness.
But, I'll pick this out:
Territories are subject to the jurisdiction.
Then why aren't persons born in US territories citizens instead of "nationals," a specifically non-citizen status?
I am not tossing around words. I am pointing out that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is used several times in the Constitution.
Territories are not persons. It seems you don't understand how English works. It is the territory that is subject to the jurisdiction.
The sentence has to make sense as written. You don't get to add words that aren't there to distort the meaning.
Territories are subject to the jurisdiction.
Places are subject to the jurisdiction.
Persons are subject to the jurisdiction.
All three of those sentences have to make sense using the same definition for "subject to the jurisdiction." If your definition doesn't make sense with even one of those sentences then your definition is wrong.
Then you made this argument.
As above. US territories were subject to the jurisdiction of the US but that doesn't mean that all laws apply to them.
If a territory is subject to the jurisdiction even if all laws don't apply then you have completely undermined your argument that foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction because not all laws apply to them.
Yakuda
Verified User
You.did you demented pickle