lol. so have you found in US code some rules for SCOTUS.
Allan
Yes! Our Supreme Law of the Land requires an adherence to “the rules of the common law”.
In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.”
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent:
”But 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 :
“A 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.”
This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:
“The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.”
So, summing this up, to not adhere to the documented legislative intent when questions arise as to the constitution’s text, is to allow judges and Justices to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to its text:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
I suspect he meant clarification.
I suspect you knew that too.
2 Likes
not codified in US Code.
imaginary rules.
Allan
The constitution is the supreme law of the land . . . follow the rules.
thats not what the eo says, in fact it says the exact opposite of that
Me too.
And I believe that the part
" …all persons born or naturalized in the United States and SUBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF…" will be the deciding factor.
1 Like
There you have it.
The key sentence that will decide once for all.
I’m not disagreeing but instead pointing out that this was ratified in 1868, long after our forefathers wrote the Constitution. Did this go against their original intent? Now it’s going to the SCOTUS and “we the people” will get this decided.
the constitution is merely a guideline.
it is codified into law and located in US statutes.
Allan
You’re lucky that your buddy Wu isn’t here at the moment to set you straight. 
And where do we find the meaning of that passage, as understood by those who framed and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, other than in the debates of the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify our Constitution?
So, let us review this very source to determine the meaning of ". . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .
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.(my emphasis) 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: [B][I]“…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. Apparently, unwritten policy, and only unwritten policy, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, is recognized as a citizens of the United States upon birth. And as it turns out, President Trump, under his Article 2 powers, may lawfully change existing unwritten policy concerning anchor babies to his Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
1 Like
there are no rules in the constitution.
rules are codified in US statutes.
Allan
no matter how many posts by John in this thread.
Allan
No rules? Apparently, you haven’t read it. 
3 Likes
i have read it, merely guidelines.
SCOTUS determines what it says.
Allan
OR they read it and don’t like what it says.
1 Like
It’s full of rules Allan. To suggest that it’s just a guideline is so utterly ridiculous as to not even warrant a serious answer.
1 Like
Yup. Allan apparently has not read the rules.
“8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
So, as it turns out and under the “rules” if a baby is born on American soil and is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, the baby does not then automatically obtain U.S. citizenship.
It’s time for Allan to not only follow the rules, but read them so they can be followed.
1 Like
incorrect. if it was there would be no need for SCOTUS.
Allan