Donation to a charity?
Avatars for a month?
You loose!
Did I? Well darn!
Iâm not crying, Iâm educating.
You didnât elect a king.
What gets me is you like to post links, write walls of text. Yet you can answer the most simple question about the law.
Oh, but the âwalls of textâ you mention provide documentation concerning basic questions regarding the law.
Sure. Is the answer to my question on that wall somewhere? Do you need me to repeat the question?
No. I already accepted your white flag HERE
If youâre so suee your king is going to mAsS dEpOrt dAy 1, why this?
Which actually shows some logic.
Did you answer the question?
Do you need me to repeat myANSWER?
The parents or the child or both. To whom is your salvation clause apply?
Read the 14th.
And the meaning of ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " as the words appear in our Constitution were clarified and expounded upon by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.
And this brings us to constitutional construction 101
16 Am Jur 2d
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutionâs framers.
16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, âRules of Construction, Generallyâ
Par. 88âProceedings of conventions and debates.
Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )
Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writingsâ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.â (numerous citations omitted)
Finally, see In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), where our Supreme Court expoundes upon an attempt to misconstrue the text of legislation to defeat its intentions.
âBut there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
âA thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.â
Who exactly is ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " ?
Those who meet the criteria as outline HERE, by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.
Those who?
Under whose jurisdiction is a child born on US soil and currently still on US soil?
Yes!
Those who meet the criteria as outlined
HERE, by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.
The 14th applies to the child, not the parents in the context of birthright citizenship (jus soli).
The parentsâ immigration status is irrelevant.
Thank you for once again posting your unsubstantiated opinions.
Does the US then own the child?
