By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 04 November 2018
Edit Thread
coolbeans said:
Machiavellian said:

The argument in question saying is that one clause  "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  Not sure why this seems to be the one clause that people use because if that is the case how is it that the US government can prosecute illegal immigrants in the US.  As the other side has argued, you cannot use the intent of the person who wrote the amendment, only the words and their meaning.  If we go down that route then the 2nd amendment goes into play as well.  At the end of the day, it has already been argued who is and isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the US and that are diplomats and Indians on reservations.  You cannot prosecute them on US soil but instead send them back to their country or reservation.

If people actually want the words of the 14th to be more clear then should it not go through the same process we have used for years.  

So, there's a lot to dissect between these two quotes that's wrong but I'm having trouble squishing down in html to one big post (really bad at tech stuff).  Initially, I had my thoughts focused on this one before I noticed the next quote which has some overlap here.  Anyways...

As brought up with other poster, the idea of jurisdiction isn't limited to geographical location in respect to the protections of the 14th.  Well, if that's what the "other side" is arguing then they're providing an argument that's disingenuous and self-contradictory.  The very notion of ONLY examining an amendment's words & intent already begs the question: what were the ratifiers' intentions?  In order to answer that, any intellectually-honest person would investigate both their lawmakers' use of vernacular and surrounding context.  Which is what makes you referencing the 2nd amendment quite humorous & applicable.  

-"If we go down that route then the 2nd amendment goes into play as well. "

You mean like it has several times before?  DC vs. Heller case is not that old.  And judging by the "muh Constitution (when convenient)"  outrage over this found here & elsewhere, it seems like "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is about as widely misunderstood as "A well-regulated militia...," your following sentences seem to be proof of that.  

-"If people actually want the words of the 14th to be more clear then should it not go through the same process we have used for years. "

Except they are pretty clear but have been misapplied.  That's the crux of people's unreason here: demanding Beloved Leader & cohorts go through the most rigorous law-making process of the US for a policy--not a constitutional law--that never had to do the same.  And my support for this argument comes from the language of the 14th, the historical context surrounding it, AND the clear-stated intentions of the ratifiers themselves (of which I have more quotes if necessary).


Machiavellian said:

The problem with everything you just said is that no where in the constitution did it stipulate 'Total jurisdiction".  Also we are still talking about the CHILD born on US soil not the parents.  You are confusing the 2 situations and totally ignoring the differences.  Even the Indian act gives a Native Indian US citizenship if born on US soil, not a reservation.  Even if Trump wanted to take away birthright Citizenship he would still need to go through congress whether you believe congress can just make a bill and have it signed by the president it still doesn't give him rights to do this based on an executive order.

Also there is a big whole in your claim using Native Americans.  Congress did make all native Americans US citizens but that did not touch on the 14th amendment at all.  They did not change the wording or interpreted the constitution but instead gave them citizenship because of the 14th amendment they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  If anything you just actually killed your argument instead of supported it.

Except that's not a problem b/c the addition of an adjective, specifically used by another Senator btw, doesn't negate what I'm emphasizing.  By this same illogic, your argument is in tatters b/c nowhere in the 14th does it say "geographical jurisdiction."  Why does it say neither of those two adjectives?  Well, there's an argument to be made mine's more applicable simply b/c what defines "jurisdiction" is multilayered already.  I mean...I've been following that we're talking THE CHILD here; the idea of allegiances/jurisdiction should still apply here.  The only reason they've popped out on US soil is b/c their mother violated federal law (which taints the notion they're allowed citizenship to begin with).  Comparing that to Native American children born outside a reservation is a false equivalence b/c natives still get freedom of movement within US borders.  Remind me who's confusing 2 situations and totally ignoring the differences.  

So, I'm not 100% committed to agreeing with you on this.  Because of Article II, I wouldn't surprised to see an approach to the judiciary being the result.

So...there's some alarm bells going off with this tactic here.  You presenting a twisted through-line in this part whilst not acknowledging how much of the OP is killed given this information, for one.  "This dynamite I'm laying beneath my feet will totally destroy you!"  Two, giving Indians citizenship "b/c of the 14th they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is a mischaracterization of the storied history of how Native Americans gained US citizenship since the 14th was ratified.  Also, it's not outside the bounds of Congress to make new laws defining which previously excluded groups can now be considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  The problem?  The concept of Birthright Citizenship hasn't gone through such a process.  Seeing a terrible lack of argument-killing here.

Everything still boils down to the President cannot by Executive Order remove birthright citizenship.  We can argue sematics all day long but there is no precedent of a President being able to do this and at best it would need to go to Congress.  If Congress wants to intrepid the wording of the 14th amendment without actually amending it then it would need to go to the Supreme Court.  Even your last paragraph supports exactly the main topic.  It still needs to go to Congress and it still needs to adhere to the constitution.  So out of all your text.  Where exactly does it show that the President can use an Executive order to go against the 14th amendment.