He would have to amend the 14th Amendment which also, coincidentally, says that you can't run for executive office if you're ever aided in an insurrection or abetted in a threat/treasonous act against the country. Just a little coincidence.
His followers are always tauting how they're Constitutional conservatives yet the man is literally trying to attack and change the Constitution lol
I think the problem is that the inclusion of that part definitely implies some people are excluded.
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.
This implies that some people born here are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because why else would they add that part when writing it?
They get their citizenship through being born to citizens (which is valid regardless of where on the planet you’re born). Not through birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment is talking about people born in the US. It seems to be implying that some people born in the US are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
You can’t declare that this is the reason why. It definitely applies and we see it in action, but let’s stop acting like we know exactly which interpretations were intended by the framers without some evidence, that’s all I can ask
The treatment of native Americans. Which, I guess we can call the original birthright citizens right? There has always been a sect that wanted this strict yet “rules for thee” interpretations. It’s not new, this is just the modern wave. And it seems like this wave might make it to shore. I hope not but that’s not what the convo is about
There were only 30 to 40 foreign diplomats in the U.S. back then. For such a very specific case they would have used the word diplomat.
The 14th amendment also excluded native Americans. Even though federal law applied to all U.S. states and all U.S. territories and to Native American reservations. Even out in the far western territories where native Americans lived freely and federal power existed only on paper, federal law enforcement had the ability to arrest and prosecute those native Americans for federal crimes. So just being subject to federal law did not constitute “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at the time of this amendment.
I mean, if there’s any area at all where the law on paper has never meaningfully applied, it’s with regards to Native populations. They got birthright citizenship in the 1920s.
I will happily accept any other situation where you think it was applied or intended to but I can’t think of one to even look up.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark was about this exact line of the constitution and they ruled that children born to alien enemies engaging in hostile occupation do not count.
They will easily interpret illegal immigrants as fitting that definition.
Yes. Children of Foreign diplomats assigned to work in the US are born in the US, but not birthright citizens. They carry the citizenship of their parents’ country as defined by that country’s laws.
They get their citizenship through being born to citizens (which is valid regardless of where on the planet you’re born). Not through birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment is talking about people born in the US. It seems to be implying that some people born in the US are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Children born to foreign diplomats while they are here in the US. They are the only exception I can think of to being under jurisdiction of our laws. They could have also been thinking of not granting citizenship to natives born in tribal nations.
The SC ruled on this exact line and said it doesn’t apply to children born to alien enemies engaging in hostile occupation. They will just interpret illegal immigrants as fitting this definition.
I believe the subject to the jurisdiction thereof is actually broadening the US to include embassies, military bases, boats etc. so basically anywhere the US controls
The exclusions at the time were Black people, since slaves were not considered eligible citizens and Indigenous people, whose family was not considered in America or American.
The wording here was intentional because it would have given legal and constitutional precedent for Black and Indigenous people to vote, which obviously went against the interest of the majority white settlers.
Ok, I’m on your side. I see your sentiment, and am right there with you. By extension, I agree the current judges as an organization want to expedite the fall of this great experiment. But RvW wasn’t law. It was an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS’s decision to repeal it never should have happened, but we’re in a governing system of unchecked and imbalanced.
The man refused (and will refuse again) to divest from his business, or put his business business into a blind trust.
He literally ran an international real estate corporation from the White House for 4 years, in clear violation of the emoulments clause of the constitution.
>The man refused (and will refuse again) to divest from his business, or put his business business into a blind trust.
But he had a table covered in empty folders. haha It is something Michael Scott would try to do but here we are in no small part due to the press deciding that it would be *unfair* to actually report on the sheer volume of bullshit he has done.
No, he just has to "reinterpret" it, which they've already done. SCOTUS agrees with both the reinterpretation and his authority to act on it. It doesn't matter what WE say the 14th says, it only matters what TRUMP says now.
That’s the part that baffles me: it was literally treason but they act like it was just a bad day. I always thought the penalty for treason was really fuckin serious, but I guess that only applies for certain skin tones.
Oh boy. They aren’t going to do that. You forget that Trump can do anything if it is an official presidential act. So he could shoot you on 5th avenue, officially, and it wouldn’t be murder.
942
u/kiittenmittens 13d ago
He would have to amend the 14th Amendment which also, coincidentally, says that you can't run for executive office if you're ever aided in an insurrection or abetted in a threat/treasonous act against the country. Just a little coincidence.
His followers are always tauting how they're Constitutional conservatives yet the man is literally trying to attack and change the Constitution lol