Which they do.
You sound like a hoplophobe claiming an AR isn’t an arm.
Not within the meaning of the 14th Amendment as documented HERE
Yes it is.
Fine, you can have a musket.
According to you but not according to voices of acknowledged authority as documented HERE
According to the law. I already said you can have a musket.
Has “jurisdiction thereof” expanded since 1868?
According to the 14th Amendment which requires being "…completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)
But, thank you for your personal opinion.
You just voted again for the biggest ass to have ever run for President.
1 Like
Which they are.
You can’t prove allegiance.
And win. Landslide! Mandate!
Third biggest, the two other losers he beat take 1st and 2nd.
According to you but not according to acknowledged authorities on the subject who I quoted HERE
Once again, let me thank you for your personal opinion.
Sure, sure
Look at the scoreboard 
1 Like
No, according to the letter of the law.
Smack his ass!
Yes! According to the 14th Amendment, our supreme law of the land and requires being "…completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)
Here’s a couple things related to this reality of interpretation. First off Wong King Ark was not unanimous. In other words had more of the justices at that time have the philosophical leaning of those in the dissent then there wouldn’t be birth right citizenship. Second were the two different court rulings on abortion. 50 years ago a majority of justices viewed the constitutionality of abortion one way wheres a couple of years ago a majority of justices viewed it a different way.
Which they are.
You can’t prove allegiance.
You can have a musket.
Not what, where. Jus soli.
Jurisdiction thereof. Check.
You do realize that deportation proves jurisdiction?
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812)
