On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the > jurisdiction <http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS> thereof, > are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." > > I think most of the confusion about the issue comes from the "jurisdiction > thereof" clause. > > The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. > > Here is a summary of a case almost 20 years later. > > > In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the > birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that > *being > born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship > *; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the > jurisdiction of the United States. The court's majority held that the > children of Native Americans were: > > "no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction > thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth > Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born > within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United > States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. > > > Here are some quotes and from and info about some of the framers of the > Fourteenth Amendment. > > Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson > of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: We must depend on the general law relating > to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and > that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United > States is a natural-born citizen of such States, *except* that of children > born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign > Governments. > > Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said *Sec. > 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes* meant *every human being born within the > jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any > foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a > natural born citizen.* If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law > rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be > entirely irrelevant. > > > > 'How can people say they want to have judges that "uphold the Constitution" > and then do something to blatantly in the face of the plain wording of that > very same document?' > > Based on the case above and quotes from the framers of the amendment, it > doesn't seem to be blatantly flying in the face of the amendment, unless you > count the Constitution as a "living and breathing" document, which I do not. > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America#cite_note-1 > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317043 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
