It appears that reading is not you friend. 
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
Yeah that’s true sometimes.
Can you help a (possible) fellow citizen out here? I couldn’t find it.
ETA: Oh, OK thanks.
Thirty days seems like a pretty sporty timeframe to get all future birth certificates and corresponding computer systems in hospitals, states and federal government updated accordingly.
". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "
In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.
And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court affirms the Court’s opinion in the Slaughter-House cases:
”Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country”
'”This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance”
And the above brings us back to the question: What was the stated intentions and beliefs of the framers, and those who helped to ratified the Fourteenth Amendment? That answer is to be found in the debates of the 39th Congress.
In discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” see Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
will settled in june by SCOTUS and put an end to trump misguided EO.
guess we will be inundated with more walls of text calling for impeachment of SCOTUS justices when they rule against this nonsensical EO.
Allan
Are you suggesting our Supreme Court will not FOLLOW THE RULES?
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Actually, the Supreme Court gets to define what is already in the Constitution.
3 Likes
That’s precisely what would have to happen. And it should happen, if SCOTUS decides that the existing language in the Constitution allows for children born to those here illegally to get US citizenship.
1 Like
I wouldn’t. In my book, If you’ve been given US citizenship, you get to keep it.
Given Trump’s way of doing things, though, I could see him trying to apply it retroactively.
Are you suggesting a majority of our Supreme Court members will not FOLLOW THE RULES?
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Damn, you’re horny for argument.
Geez, man. Take a midol or something.
“IF” means “IF”. Nothing more.
1 Like
Yup! If this and if that is irrelevant to what is.
there are no rules for SCOTUS. they issue opinions and they are followed.
Allan
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
unsure why the emoji.
there are no rules for SCOTUS to follow by law or tradition.
Allan
Let us establish what the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is.
Intent of constitution
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
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 constitution’s framers.
16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
Par. 88–Proceedings 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 writings“ 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.” (numerous citations omitted )
Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
as a friend of mine has often stated, those are guidelines not rules.
rules are codified.
Allan
there is nothing in US code for SCOTUS to follow.
Allan
1 Like
You don’t know what ratification means, do you?