And yet here we are.
Mark Levin has some good points, but hell he even get my blood pressure up. But he has made some terrible mistakes over the year…biggest one was his push for flag burning Amendment.
How can you be Constitutional scholar and advocate flag flag burning Amendment? And freedom of speech that libs love to argued isn’t the point…it’s a real distraction IMO.
People are not going to watch 38 minutes of some video. If there is minute mark that you want to discuss…then you may have more response to your post/discussion.
I didn’t watch the video, but I do know Levin’s history and angle he comes from.
1 Like
Somewhat. The problem is there are so many synonyms and meanings to the word that can mean totally different things.
I think your right on them not being keen on that way of thinking either. Being subjects of…
The problem is that’s a “top down” view. Where “subject to” is a bottom up statement.
It can also be taken in the context of owing allegiance to, or honoring, or respecting. Which is a “bottom up” view, and the way it’s phrased in the amendment.
(2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state
Subject Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Yeah, and another who claimed to know every single person on this forums accolades without k knowing a single one of them. Pretty impressive huh?
I must say I am impressed by this post.
And no that wasnt an insult or condescending.
If the parents are subject to our laws then their children that is born here are considered citizens. At least that is how I always viewed it.
Now if someone wants to correct men then I’ll listen but chances are I won’t be changing my mind since I’ve gone over this many times.
Ain’t that a ■■■■■■■ truth…
I won’t argue that it can be taken that way as well.
I just think the definition I linked above makes much more logical sense. Where subject means “owing allegiance to”.
You’re talking about Senator Howard during the debate?
Mr. TRUMBULL: … It is only those person who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
The proponents of the 14th were clear, those who are subject to our laws.
Repeating it doesn’t change the fact that there are two versions of “subject to” that make sense in the context, yet mean vastly different things.
And the phrasing of the 14th where it says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
By one definition, they are under (subject to) our jurisdiction.
By another definition they are not owing allegiance (subject to) our laws.
The version that matter is what is written in section 1 of BoR’s.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Words matter. I know libs have problem with words sometimes like shall not be infringed. 
That’s the part I’m talking about.
“Subject to” can mean either under or affected by our laws, or it can mean subservient to or owing allegiance to.
That’s a noun.
As in we are “subjects”.
“Subject to” is a phrasal verb.
Correct.
And as a verb it can mean owing allegiance to…
Ok. It’s a weird case. Yes that definition would be a noun. But the descriptors of that noun are verbs.
That being the case. How do we know it was meant as a noun or verb? Both fit in the context and completely change the meaning of the clause.
It’s not a noun. It’s a phrasal verb.
