"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP

martin said:
American Indians always were citizens under the 14th Amendment depending on how the "jurisdiction" phrase was interpreted.
Click to expand...
So are you saying we should just ignore the SCOTUS?

The SCOTUS said it was interpreted to mean who they owed allegiance to at birth. So no, according to the SCOTUS they weren't always citizens hence the need for the Snyder act.

Bingham who wrote the 14th amendment and remained politically active never said the Snyder act was not needed because of the 14th Amendment and he did not say anything about the Elk case.
 
martin said:
American Indians always were citizens under the 14th Amendment depending on how the "jurisdiction" phrase was interpreted.
Click to expand...
There is only one way it should be interpreted. The SCOTUS studied the 14th and decided what the correct interpretation meant and they said:


The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
 
martin said:
The Snyder Act closed a possible loophole in The Constitution that arguably failed to recognize native Americans as citizens owing to the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
The Snyder Act was a Band-aid for the situation, addressing status of Native Americans, but no "possible loophole" in the Constitution can be "closed" by any law passed by Congress because no such law can change the Constitution or somehow supercede it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top