U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: 14th Amendment Citizenship
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 24, 2013
Author: Senators Trumbull, Howard and Williams -
Post Date: 2013-07-24 11:23:20 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 14981
Comments: 25
14th Amendment Citizenship "[T]he 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 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Not my words. Those are the words of Senator Trumbull, one of two Senators that drafted the 14th. Here's some further explanations by Senators Trumbull and Howard: "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." Senator Howard "Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons 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." Senator Trumbull Mr. HOWARD: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." Then there's the on-record statement of Senator Williams: "In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Then "natural born citizen" is clarified by Representative John Bingham, often considered the "father" of the 14th: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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" Then of course, we have the oath of citizenship: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."
Poster Comment: Obama does not qualify to be President of the United States of America. Period.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#4. To: We The People (#0)
"[T]he 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 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Not my words. Those are the words of Senator Trumbull, one of two Senators that drafted the 14th. [...] Then "natural born citizen" is clarified by Representative John Bingham, often considered the "father" of the 14th: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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" The John Bingham quote from March 9, 1866 addressed different wording which appeared in the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. S-61, introduced by Sen. Lyman Trumbull on January 5, 1866 became the Civil Rights Act of 1866. H.R. 127 proposed the 14th Amendment and was introduced by the father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham. Senator Jacob Howard submitted the citizenship clause as an amendment to H.R. 127 on May 30, 1866. Senator Howard's citizenship clause did not exist when Rep. Bingham's statement was made. In debate on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, its author Senator Jacob Howard stated on May 23, 1866: And, on May 30, 1866 Senator Howard stated: However, the original intent is not binding upon an interpretation of a constitutional amendment. It is not a piece of legislation passed by congress. It is ratified by the people. They vote based on the plain text language of the proposed amendment. The plain text language of the citizenship clause is:
Minor v. Happersett en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett "The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."[12] The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth."
Wasted effort. See Wong Kim Ark.
Which said that he was a US citizen, not a natural born one.
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to "citizen." But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
John McCain was not born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States so the 14th Amdt does not apply. The Federal citizenship statute then in effect applied to persons born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Assuming McCain was born within the Canal Zone, he would have been within the jurisdiction but outside the territory of the United States. The law was changed after the birth of McCain when it was realized that persons born outside the U.S. in certain places did not fall under the 14th Amdt or the Federal law as phrased. The law was stated to be retroactive to cover people who had been born in the CZ. At issue would be if Congress could make one not a citizen at birth, by retroactive law, a citizen at birth, i.e., a natural born citizen. Precisely where McCain was born is another interesting issue. McCain has never produced a birth certificate.
#20. To: nolu chan (#19)
(Edited)
A Panamanian banana republican.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest14th Amendment Citizenship
It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, "citizen of the United States," although that expression occurs twice in the Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to Senators, who are likewise to be citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.
Mr. HOWARD. 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 so 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.
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.
#7. To: nolu chan (#4)
#10. To: We The People (#7)
Minor v. Happersett
#13. To: nolu chan, We The People (#10)
See Wong Kim Ark.
#14. To: hondo68, nolu chan (#13)
But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:
#15. To: nolu chan, hondo68, (#14)
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
#19. To: We The People, hondo68 (#15)
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
Replies to Comment # 19. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]