re: Why Trumpsigned EO to end birthright citizenship

I guess a State could pass a law denying the issuance of birth certificates without proof of citizenship/legal status of a parent.

quote:

---

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

This part seems to imply born to US citizens. Otherwise what's the point of adding that caveat? They could have just said all persons born on US soil are citizens if that's what they really meant.

---

What I'd like to know is why is the text of the 14th Amendment is different from the text of the Revised Statutes of 1878?
Revised Statutes were US Code before 1926.

In Title XXV Sec 1992 of the Revised Statutes Citizenship is defined as follows:

"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

Why was this text not used in the 14th Amemdment?

A baby born in Texas to a Mexican national is subject to a foreign power and therefore NOT a U.S. citizen according to the Revised Statutes that are federal law.

Sec 1993 is interesting too. It states "but the rights of Citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
I'm looking at you Barry Obama Soetoro.

quote:

---

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

---

quote:

---

Sen. Howard introduced the clause as excluding “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Many mistakes Howard’s above commentary as suggesting he was speaking only of persons who may have been foreigners or alien who belonged to “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” For one thing, members of families of ambassadors or foreign ministers where never referred to as foreigners or aliens, so these remarks must be read as persons who are foreigners or alien and persons who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, i.e., he is speaking of three distinct persons rather than making a single distinction centered around ambassadors or foreign ministers.

---

LINK

quote:

---

This is what you said so I quoted it and responded to it

---

The historical analysis is of the text, not the legislative history.

Exactly what the court did in WKA and what Scalia preferred (as well as Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, allegedly)

quote:

---

One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution. The reason for this is because the authority remained with each State to make rules that distinguished alien from citizen.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, when an issue of aliens and citizenship went before the courts it meant some State had neglected to enact laws on the subject, thereby forcing the courts to adjudicate citizenship under common law rules of place of birth.*

---

Exactly.

The 14A usurped these state-based definitions, which defaults to the common law.

quote:

---

what Scalia preferred

---

was

"to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people."

Not to rely almost exclusively on English Common law.

quote:

---

Why, then, not simply use the term “allegiance” instead of “jurisdiction?” Recall, once again, Senator Trumbull’s statements on the history of the language of the Civil Rights Act.68 The use of the term “allegiance” was considered and explicitly rejected because it could have been construed under the English common law as including all those owing “a sort of allegiance,” such as temporary sojourners and Indians born within the sovereign dominions of the United States. Under the English common law, “allegiance” was a term of art, and its meaning—as will be discussed in-depth below—was incompatible with the consent based allegiance understood by the founding generation and envisioned by the Reconstruction Congress as the basis of citizenship.

---

quote:

---

I have a little more confidence that if Congress passed a well written law then SCOTUS would uphold it.
Not slam dunk by any means, but a decent chance.


A well written law to do what? Contravene the United States Constitution? I think if they passed a law saying that from now on the 14th Amendment shall be interpreted to mean that illegal immigrants are not covered by our jurisdiction, then SCOTUS would respond that Congress was trying to do SCOTUS’ job

---

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment

quote:

---

Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

Remember when Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot (Trump v Anderson23-719 ) and the SCOTUS ruled that only congress could enforce section 3 and that since congress had not passed any legislation to enforce section 3 Colorado had to include Trump.
Using this case by the court, Section 1 cannot be used until congress passes legislation enforcing section 1.

quote:

---

"to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people."

Not to rely almost exclusively on English Common law.

---

quote:

---

The plurality also observed that “[a]t no time in the last 50 years ha[d] a majority of States authorized death as a punishment for rape.” Id., at 593. In Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 408 (1986), we held execution of the insane unconstitutional, tracing the roots of this prohibition to the common law

---

quote:

---

As we explained in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 973–974 (1991), the “Cruell and Unusuall Punishments” provision of the English Declaration of Rights was originally meant to describe those punishments “ ‘out of [the Judges’] Power’ ”—that is, those punishments that were not authorized by common law or statute, but that were nonetheless administered by the Crown or the Crown’s judges.

---

quote:

---

It is of course true that we share a common history with the United Kingdom, and that we often consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought

---

Scalia in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)

quote:

---

The historical record supports a second proposition: that the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The text 3of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts. Rather, the "right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him," is most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. The common law in 1791 conditioned admissibility of an absent witness's examination on unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine. The Sixth Amendment therefore incorporates those limitations.

---

quote:

---

Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. We leave for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of "testimonial."

---

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)

There are many others. Heller is all about analyzing the common law

So you gonna host some illegals tonight SFP?

quote:

---

quote:

---

and its application to Indians.

---

14th Amendment didn't make Indians citizens. Or else the Indians Citizenship Act wouldn't have been necessary.

---

They agreed that the Citizenship Clause does not apply to Indians. Specifically, Senator Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law.