Below is my column in the New York Post on the pardoning of the January 6th defendants by President Donald Trump. The scope of the pardon appears broader than some had hoped. What is clear is that any such relief should not extend to violent actors, particularly those who attacked police officers. However, the Justice Department itself may have made the strongest case for presidential pardons.
Here is the column:
On January 20, 2025, the “shock and awe” campaign of the Justice Department came to an end as President Donald Trump pardoned 1,500 January 6th defendants.
Four years ago, the Justice Department set out to send a chilling message to the nation. In an interview with CBS News a year later, Justice Department official Michael Sherwin indicated that they wanted to send a message with the harsh treatment of defendants.
Sherwin explained that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ … We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”
The awe is gone but the shock remains at the Justice Department.
If Sherwin and his colleagues hoped to “Trump proof” the nation, they failed in spectacular fashion.
While there was ample basis for criminal charges, the excessive treatment of some of the January 6th defendants undermined the credibility of their prosecutions for many.
That is no easy feat.
Most of us denounced the January 6th riot as a desecration of our constitutional process.
Those who engaged in the rioting, and most importantly the violence, needed to be punished.
However, what followed left many increasingly uneasy.
The Justice Department rounded up hundreds and, even though most were charged with relatively minor crimes of unlawful entry or trespass, the Justice Department opposed the release of many from jail and sought absurdly long sentences in some cases.
It also sought restrictions on defendants that raised troubling first amendment concerns.
In my recent book, “Indispensable Right,” I discuss these cases and their troubling elements.
A good example is the handling of the most well-known case of the so-called QAnon Shaman.
Bare-chested, wearing an animal headdress, horns, and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley became the iconic image of the riot.
Seeking to make examples of these defendants, the Justice Department took special measures in hammering Chansley. He was held in solitary confinement and denied bail.
Chansley was treated more harshly because of his visibility. It was his costume, not his conduct, that seemed to drive the sentencing.
In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”
Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”
However, long withheld footage, showed recently that Chansley (like hundreds of people that day) simply walked into the Capitol past police officers and was then escorted by officers through the Capitol.
At one point, two officers not only appear to guide him to the floor but actually try to open locked doors for him.
Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.
Does that make Chansley’s actions acceptable, let alone commendable?
Of course not.
He deserved to be arrested and punished.
However, what many saw was a troubled individual being made an example for others.
In my book, I discuss how, in history, “rage rhetoric” was allowed to become “state rage.”
This is one such case.
Trump ran on the promise to pardon these defendants and secured not just the White House but the popular vote.
It was not just the public that rejected the narrative of January 6th as an “insurrection.”
In the recent Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings, the Court left most cases as simply a mass trespass and unlawful entry.
The shock may be gone for these defendants, but it may only be beginning for the Justice Department and the FBI.
When the campaign of Hillary Clinton secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier to launch the Russian conspiracy investigation, it was the Justice Department that was not just the willing but eager partner.
The “insurance policy” described by former FBI official Peter Strzok was redeemed in investigations that derailed much of Trump’s first term.
Later, it was the Justice Department again that pursued a no-holds-barred effort to convict Trump before the election.
The Justice Department is the hardest of silos in Washington to reform.
Unlike most departments, it is largely homogenous, with thousands of lawyers who share professional and cultural ties.
It is a department composed of people who are by their very definition, litigious.
Trump insisted on selecting an Attorney General, nominee Pam Bondi, who has no past ties or identification with the department.
For the Justice Department, it must feel like the Visigoths arriving at the gates of Rome . . . only to be let in by the citizens.
According to polling, the public ultimately found the “barbarians” less threatening than those who have insisted that Rome would fall.
That must certainly be shocking for many in Washington, but the record of the Justice Department showed how the awe can become awful when officials feel the license of state rage.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Trump erroneously said Spain was in BRICS when a journalist asked him about NATO countries like Spain which don’t meet the NATO minimum of spending 2% of economic output on defense. Spain ranked last in the 32-nation military alliance, estimated to spend 1.28% on defense last year.
Yea, this is the guy I want leading the free world. Doesn’t even know who his allies are.
Dufus sexual abuser convicted felon baby trump is dumb as a rock. How do you feel electing a guy that doesn’t know sh!t about Spain?
How do you feel electing a guy that doesn’t know sh!t about Spain?
Terrible. The only reason I voted for him was that I thought he was a Spain expert. What’s a POTUS for if he can’t give you a scholarly historical discourse about Spain? Seriously, I cared nothing about the economy, inflation, forever wars, the risk of nuclear Armageddon, the approaching bankruptcy of America, violent crime, depending on terrorist countries for our energy needs, the invasion of tens of millions of undocumented immigrants (thousands of whom are convicted rapists and murderers), men beating the crap out of women in competitive sports, the weakening of America’s military through DEI Marxism, or anything like that. All I cared about was that my President be a Spain expert.
oldmanfromkansas, I wish you could look over my shoulder and edit as I post verbose comments, because no one could have put it more succinctly than you did.
* I feel terrible ,too.
Just because Trump is an idiot doesn’t mean he knows what he’s doing.
Whether any random person thinks he’s an idiot or not is immaterial. What matters is what he will do to make America better off. You can look at his record for a hint, since he was president once before. At that time, he delivered: (1) energy independence, (2) energy exporting, (3) affordable gas and groceries, (4) low inflation, (5) historically low unemployment especially for minorities, (6) highest real wages in half a century, (7) high property values, (8) high stock market, (9) violent crime under control, (10) border under control, Title 42 and remain-in-Mexico enforced, thus reducing human sex trafficking and deadly fentanyl infiltration into U.S. communities, as well as drowning and heat deaths of the migrants themselves (mostly children), (11) no defunding of police, (12) no war in Europe, (13) criminal justice reform, (14) trade deals benefiting America, (15) reduction of regulatory burden on small businesses, (16) no being beholden to globalist elites (e.g., Davos crowd) who despise free markets and America’s economic system, (17) no political weaponization of the Justice Department or FBI, (18) no labeling of concerned parents as domestic terrorists, (19) no wokeness in military, (20) no catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal weakening America’s position in the world, (21) China and Russia don’t dare act aggressively, (22) no being in thrall to the green cultism and waging war on our best energy sources thereby depressing civilization into a state of poverty (23) no slandering half of the American electorate as alleged fascists (odd that fascist now means someone who wants to *reduce* size and power of the central government and to *oppose* state-corporate joint action to suppress dissent — the exact opposite of what fascism previously meant), (24) and so much more.
Not to say you’re a liar, but what you wrote is a lie. Trump did not deliver energy independence. Just one of many sources of imported energy: between 2017 and 2020, Canada’s crude oil exports to the United States experienced significant growth. In 2017, Canada exported approximately 3.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of crude oil to the U.S. By 2019, this figure had increased to about 3.7 MMb/d, accounting for 54% of total U.S. crude oil imports. This upward trend continued into 2020, with Canada maintaining its position as the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the U.S.
Not to say you’re a liar, but what you wrote is a lie. Trump did not deliver energy independence. Just one of many sources of imported energy: between 2017 and 2020, Canada’s crude oil exports to the United States experienced significant growth.
Energy independence means not a single barrel of petroleum products enters the USA for any reason? Whether because a Canadian source is both closer and cheaper to an American consumer than the nearest American source, or because Canada pays USA to be the middleman in Canadian sales?
Not to say you’re liar when we know you’re a liar Skippy… but what are the chances that Canada MUST send those exports here BECAUSE THEY LACK THE REFINING CAPACITY TO PROCESS THEIR OIL IN CANADA?
In other words, Canada ships their crude oil to America, where American companies are paid to process that oil in order for it to then be sold on the global market. All while Canada continues to import American refinery products flowing the other way across the border.
Oh, if international markets and consumption were simply a matter of seeing if a single barrel of petroleum products come into the USA!
Canadian downstream – Refining our hedge
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/canadian-downstream-refining-our-hedge-rory-johnston/
Canada produces roughly three times more crude oil and equivalents (i.e., other hydrocarbon liquids that go into a refinery) than our refineries can process, and our market can consume domestically. The vast majority of that balance heads south of the border to American refineries in order to produce the finished fuels that can then be sold on the international market.
This symbiotic producer/refiner bilateral relationship has evolved over decades and is somewhat a rarity within the global oil market: almost all of Canada’s crude leaves the country by pipeline, rather than by tanker – not to mention it travels to just one importer.
The United States (U.S.) continues to be the largest source of Canada’s imported crude oil. In 2021, 66% of Canada’s oil imports came from the U.S., compared to 75% in 2020. 2021 marked the first drop in the proportion of Canada’s imported oil from the U.S., relative to the rest of the world, since 2016. Canada imported 450 000 b/d of refined petroleum products (RPPs) in 2021. This is a 7% increase from the 422 000 b/d imported in 2020. Since 2010, imports of RPPs have roughly tripled.
The United States Was Energy Independent in 2019 for the First Time Since 1957
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/the-united-states-was-energy-independent-in-2019-for-the-first-time-since-1957/
U.S. energy production in 2019 was higher than U.S. energy consumption for the first time in 62 years. Thus, the U.S. attained the long-held goal of “energy independence”—which is not to say that we did not import or export energy, but that we produced more energy than we used. One can thank the oil and gas industry and its use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for that milestone as production in those industries increased a combined 11 percent in 2019.
Next time, do your homework. And tell us where it was that Trump touched you Anonymously that hurt you so bad.
Old Airborne Dog
Pointless noncontributory wisecrack as insolent inanity and boorish violation of the Civility Rule.
BAN FOR LIFE!
Right, if Trump is an idiot and he crushed the Democratic Party, then what does that make Democrats?
President Trump got more nations to spend the required 2% on NATO. Former President Biden then took credit for it.
What should you care more about? Who can rattle off BRICS off the top of his head, or who successfully delivered on the goal of more NATO countries meeting their contractural obligation on spending, relieving some of the burden on the US?
Former President Biden couldn’t recall what state or year he was in, and quite literally couldn’t find the exit from a stage without his wife leading him by the hand, but you’re upset about referring to Spain in BRICS?
That’s your gotcha?
Trump is so stupid… how stupid is he? Trump is so stupid he thinks NATO was set up to protect European countries. NATO evolved from the Marshall Plan as a protocol to protect America’s free trade system which rakes in trillions of dollars each year. Trump would rather trash the American run global trading system and lose trillions so that Europeans can pay billions.
Adam Schiff Duped By Maximal Prank
Any justification you have for why you felt better voting for and attempting to still defend President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Incest Showers, the unindicted Oval Office House Plant still free on probation?
The military genius who led the historical NATO surrender of Afghanistan to a ragtag band of 7th century sub-human terrorists dressed in man-jammies?
The one who deserted thousands of Americans and our allies, leaving them behind because his military genius told him that a photo op on the next September 11th was more important than their lives?
Are you crying in your latte that you can’t have four more years of a dementia addled felon who can’t even win a battle with his teleprompter while other world leaders act as his handlers, leading him around by the hand.
If we have “allies” like you, I think we usually call them Communist Chinese.
Which is why you inept, feckless Democrat cowards will only post Anonymously.
Old Airborne Dog
Yea, the Ukraine war is over! YEA
trump has been in office more than 24 hours. He promised to end it within 24 hours, he could even end it before he was sworn in. I guess he chose not to end it then because he likes death and destruction. But hey, he is now in office and the war is over. Year trump.
What? He didn’t end the war yet?
Another lie? No it can’t be true.
Is the kool aid ready yet?
It’s real alright and you have drunk way too much of it. Detox now!
So would the American holiday “Thanksgiving” make all of us illegal except Native Americans? None of us were invited to live here!
Perhaps under the Native American immigration laws in place at the time. Could you please tell me how to look those up?
RITRLMAO!
‘No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men’s heart’ ~ chief ten bears
*it is sad governments are cheaped by the devil tongue . ..
😂 Hollywood history lesson.
Good movies
The United States broke every treaty that was ever signed with the Native American people.
Did they break any?
Good one. 😊
I would but yhey went up in a puff of smoke?!
The Asiatic nomads roaming around this continent were here before America was established in 1789.
They were neither native nor American.
They were citizens of no country.
They had no surveys, no deeds, no county recorder, no hall of records, no escrow office, no bills of sale, no attorneys, no elected officials, no courts, no governmental certifications, or any other proof of ownership of anything.
“In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”
Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”
*********************
Like a lot of federal judges, Lambeth missed the forest for trees. In his zeal to punish the act of the evil-doer (actus rea), he completely ignored the motivation of the act (mens rea). While the bank robber seeks only to advantage himself with a gun in the cashier’s face, the Shaman here wanted to bring the phony election issue to the eyes of the public. This distinction used to guide prosecutors and judges in the 60s in dealing with anti-war protesters. No more. Now its order & order and the spirit of the law be damned. A trait I’ve seen among judges for years now. Rather than justice tempered with mercy in sentencing; it’s punishment elevated with vengeance in sentencing. Too bad, we used to have a great court system.
We have a federal holiday – which took place the same day Trump was inaugurated (yesterday) – honoring a man because of his civil disobedience of certain laws. The Left praises civil disobedience as such . . . as long as it is for their own causes; they condemn civil disobedience if it is used for a cause they disfavor, e.g., protesting abortion, where they killed it off through draconian legislation (the FACE act).
The key to civil disobedience is the willingness to suffer the consequences of punishment. The Left wants no consequences, e.g., the Joe Floyd riots and summer of discontent. The center and right accept reasonable punishment.
That’s George Floyd, a drug addled career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose while resisting arrest.
“A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.
“There is no question,” the committee said in a report to the university’s provost, “but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation.”
…
But the committee did recommend that a letter stating its finding be placed with the official copy of Dr. King’s dissertation in the university’s library.
The four-member committee was appointed by the university a year ago to determine whether plagiarism charges against Dr. King that had recently surfaced were in fact true. Today the university’s provost, Jon Westling, accepted the committee’s recommendations and said its members had “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”
The dissertation at issue is “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.” Dr. King wrote it in 1955 as part of his requirements for a doctor of philosophy degree, which he subsequently received from the university’s Division of Religious and Theological Studies.”
– New York Times, October 11, 1991
________________________________________
“Abernathy, 62, devotes part of one chapter of the 620-page autobiography to King’s reported extramarital affairs, including allegations King had sex with two women the night before he was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn., and fought with a third.
“Abernathy said in his statement — read by an aide because his eyesight is bad — that the purpose of the book ‘was to focus attention once again on the civil rights movement in the profound hope that oppressed people would be informed and thus inspired to carry Martin’s dream to the next level.
“‘I also wanted to tell the truth and set the record straight, once and for all, versions put forth by those who would and have attempted to rewrite history.'”
– UPI
I would very much like to hear Professor Turley’s opinion on whether the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship to illegal aliens.
For years, to my understanding, the issue has revolved around whether illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves. It was never intended to be a loophole to the federal immigration system, luring pregnant women to trek across the desert at the hands of drug cartels, to give birth in the US. Is birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens in the US an unintended consequence, that can only be rectified by Constitutional Amendment, or is it a misreading of the Amendment?
President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship will take this issue to the Supreme Court, where it will finally be determined.
What is Turley’s opinon on this important matter?
Karen, I totally agree with you, this issue is ripe for review and I believe the Court will agree with your (and my) opinion.
* nationals attending school in the US don’t pledge allegiance. They know so how don’t you? Immigrants follow the law and naturalize.
😂 it’s not a game of tag…omg
However, if it becomes complicated if Presidents ignore Supreme Court decisions such as Biden did of the the Supreme Court decision regarding the unconstitutionality of his “cancelling” college student loan debt and Trump’s current end-around attempt to not follow the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision that Congress’ law to shut down TikTok in the U.S. was constitutional. Each on their own can be considered acts of lawlessness.
* It’s a period piece. After the civil war the confederates had sworn an oath to the confederate stares of America. A way to reincorporare the confederates as citizens of the USA was the natural born. The non free people are naturalized citizens under the jurisdiction of the USA leaving behind iaths and States of the confederacy.
I hope that clears it up. Omg
States not stares. Funny
Oaths not iaths.
It’s after the civil war. 😂 you don’t get it.
Wow
* I won’t go further with the 14th but it circles back to the Turley Kennedy free speech debate in some specific areas.
Overall the left has successfully burnt the place down and president Trump wants the gulf of Mexico and wants to buy Greenland.
There are entire school districts now comprised solely of nationals swearing no allegiance to the USA and changing the sports teams name to the bears from the Minutemen. They had no idea what Minutemen were.
Thanks for the lessons. Everything is completely immoral. Peace
All of you are ‘illegal aliens’.
Well actually they thought the bison, tatonka and wolf and bear owned the land. They had no ownership laws nor the wheel nor horses nor wells nor metals….stone age. You do know that? 10,000 year difference between Europe and North America. They mainly lived near the equator for warmth. There were approximately 2 million and 1 billion bison.
I don’t like what we did with Manhattan either on the otherhand. 😂
The indigenous Americans were the original colonists who took land from other people in waves, through wars, slavery, etc. America was largely unincorporated or owned by diverse stakeholders throughout its history.
I think you got it all wrong. South America was once joined with Africa. They came from Africa as the tectonic plates shifted and walked up not down.
There were tribes in most of North America, rather than a nation in the modern sense of the word. The closest to a nation would be the Iroquois Nation, and the Mayan and Aztec kingdoms, who committed genocide on neighboring tribes. They just killed or enslaved most of those who tried to live on their land. No one could sue the Iroquois in court over land. You held land, or you lost it. The US was the strongest tribe to arrive.
Native Americans had no concept of land ownership, out of any tribe that I’m aware of. There was no concept that if you built a lodge, that land belonged to you and your defendants for perpetuity. Rather, tribes held territory until either they moved voluntarily to follow the herds, or a stronger tribe came and took it from them. Stronger tribes kept out others who tried to settle on their land without permission, through violence.
The Black Hills went through the hands of 5 different tribes over the past few hundred years. The United States has actually held the Black Hills longer than any Native tribe, with the possible exception of the Arikara, the first known settlers whose arrival is only estimated, or perhaps a paleo tribe that wasn’t recorded.
All land that is now called the United States has changed hands among tribes before European settlers.
If the US stole its land, then every previous tribe also stole that land.
Does anyone think a land full of resources, and Stone Age inhabitants without the wheel, beasts of burden other than dogs, or metallurgy beyond jewelry would possibly keep that vast territory in the face of more advanced civilizations? What would this land be like if it had instead been claimed by Rossiya, or a Middle Eastern or Asian country?
The United States became an experiment in individual freedom, with a level of Free Speech not enjoyed anywhere else in the world. As a Western nation, it was among the first few nations to abolish slavery on the planet, with Mexico and Great Britain being first and second. What tribe would modern Native Americans wish they would belong to? The Aztecs with human sacrifice? Iroquois? The movements of the strongest tribes would spread. Would modern Native Americans give up the wheel, metal, all technology and modern medicine, written language (beyond pictograms), a unifying language in addition to their native language, planes, trains, automobiles, phones, computers, the internet, space travel, most farming, everything that was brought to North America?
I luv those earrings
Karen:
Here’s the operative langauage of the Amednment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ̳a̳n̳d̳ ̳s̳u̳b̳j̳e̳c̳t̳ ̳t̳o̳ ̳t̳h̳e̳ ̳j̳u̳r̳i̳s̳d̳i̳c̳t̳i̳o̳n̳ ̳t̳h̳e̳r̳e̳o̳f̳, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Now ask yourself if the British Ambassador’s child, born in DC’s George Washington’s University Hospital, an American citizen? There’s the issue.
Neither British ambassadors children nor any of the employees of the british embassy who have children while in the US are citizens of the US, that was established long ago.
That is similar but not identical to illegal immigrants.
The courts are ultimately going to have to decide whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof applies to illegal aliens.
Personally I think it does and I think THIS Trump EO is a mistake. Both constitutionally and as a practicle matter.
The EU does not have birthright citizenship and that poses a significant problem. It makes it substantially harder to assimilate the children of illegal immigrants.
It increases the likelyhood they become terrorists or criminals because tTHEY do not think of themselves as citizens.
I suspect the courts will reject this as well.
But this is not a bat$hit crazy EO.
People born in the U.S., in the absence of any alternative citizenship, are U.S. citizens. What else would they be?
*personally, I believe the earth is just one big country .. . and we are all citizens of it.
No need for the apology
I am waiting for a case where the British ambassador has a kid with his American girlfriend. My guess is, natural born citizen. It would also be fun if the British ambassador’s wife has a kid with her American boyfriend.
A lot of prior case law was based on citizenship being passed through the father, and a lot of that has changed over time. I know foreign born children of American male soldiers with foreign women were not American citizens. I am not sure of the current status of that law, nor the outcome if a female American soldier has a child born overseas to a non American father.
The language and meaning is obvious. 😂
The problem isn’t as you think. I don’t really care. It’s Obama’s world and it’s out of control.
😂 so the key is WANTING to be a citizen of the nation of your citizenship… got it.
:The courts are ultimately going to have to decide whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof applies to illegal aliens.
Personally I think it does and I think THIS Trump EO is a mistake”
I think that the “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis may well turn on the perceived status of child vs parent at he time the 14th was written and ratified. In other words, can a child be a US subject independent of its foreign parents, or is the child, as ward of the parents, assigned the same national affiliation as theirs until it reaches the age of majority? To me, the latter case is the more likely. We almost certainly shall see soon.
No, nor tourists. They’re subject to the UK.
Doesn’t everyone know that? 😂
😂 they are subject to the jurisdiction of the nation of citizenship. If tourists are visiting with passports and visas and the female gives birth while visiting is the child a citizen of the United States? No, the visitors and child remain citizens of the nation of origin. That’s what it says. That is the constitution 😂.
People have illegally trashed it on the otherhand. The big cover-up. There’s a lawful process for naturalization that most immigrants are aware of and follow.
The child of the vacationer, if born here, is currently a natural born citizen. With dual citizenship.
😂 in Obama’s world.
We’ve enjoyed 2 Manchurian candidates
–> Obama and Harris.
The ayotollah visits with his harem and has a baby. His son returns with birth cert and attends Yale. He runs for the senate. It’s a great story…yep. that’s it.
If the vacationer’s child is a “natural born citizen,” what is a “citizen” and what is the difference that allows “citizens” to be Congressmen and Senators while Presidents must be “natural born citizens?”
“Citizen” and “natural born citizen” are not the same and are different in the Constitution.
The greater office requires a greater form of citizenship.
You’ll find the clear answer in Vattel, the Law of Nations, 1758.
You’ll find the clear answer in Vattel, the Law of Nations, 1758.
Rebel Confederate Democrat constitutional experts place all their faith and racist hopes for a pureblood America on a European who the Framers took absolutely no notice of nor mentioned during the Constitutional Convention. There’s a reason the Founders didn’t shorten their work by incorporating Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ into the laws of America.
Anyone reading Madison’s Notes (either because their coursework requires them to, or because they want to know about the Constitution), will quickly find out that the Confederate “experts” can’t point to one sentence in the Constitutional debates recorded by Madison where Vattel’s drunken ramblings were referred to in discussions on citizenship.
One would think that if it actually were a clear answer, our resident Confederate Democrat constitutional expert could quote the page numbers where the Founders discussed incorporating Vattel into the wording concerning citizenship.
Old Airborne Dog
There’s a lawful process for naturalization that most immigrants are aware of and follow.
There is no “most immigrants” regarding lawful naturalization. It’s the same as whether you’re alive or you’re dead. It is a binary status.
If you DIDN’T comply with the legal processes to obtain an immigrant visa to enter America in compliance with immigration law, you AREN’T an immigrant. Instead, you are an Illegal Alien, a criminal illegally in the country who cannot complete the lawful naturalization process.
This is why Democrats want to call their Illegal Alien Guest Democrat Voters “undocumented migrants” (as though they’re like geese, going to leave and migrate back to where they came from) instead of Illegal Aliens.
As a parting thought: if Illegal Aliens can be referred to in conversation as “undocumented migrants”, surely there can be nothing wrong with referring to Democrats like Gigi, George and Dennis as “undocumented psychiatric ward patients”
Old Airborne Dog
Karen, great idea (having JT speak out on Birthplace Citizenship).
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the weaker argument for the non-relevance of 14A.
The stronger argument asks, “How are the minor children of immigrants supposed to obtain US Citizenship?”
This leads to researching Citizenship by Derivation. The co-resident child becomes a US Citizen automatically on the same day the parent is Naturalized. Derivation. It’s in the INA Law.
This was the policy going back to the Naturalization Act of 1790. It was the policy in 1868. Were the drafters of 14A seeking to obsolete Citizenship of immigrant children by Derivation? No way. The original law was conceived so as to NOT to split immigration status within the family.
Therefore, interpreting 14A the mistaken way it has been done violates common sense:
• because it splits the family into different immigration statuses
• because the law cannot give two conflicting answers on how immigrant children become citizens
Get ready by spreading the word about Citizenship by Derivation.
“It was never intended to be a loophole to the federal immigration system, luring pregnant women to trek across the desert at the hands of drug cartels, to give birth in the US. ”
That is obviously true, but it doesn’t definitive answer the question of the intended scope of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. That is the critical question, and, in light of the pace of Trump’s EO and the resulting 22 state joint litigation, it hopefully will be answered by SCOTUS fairly soon.
I owe you an apology. In the comments to a previous Turley comment I was accusing a poster of being a Gigi alias, and I mistakenly wrote your screen name when I meant to cite a different identity.
Just read the Congressional debates.
The framers of the 14th were very clear what ‘subject to the jurisdiction, thereof’ means.
It means the parents must be under the full and complete jurisdiction of the US government. Not under the jurisdiction of any other government.
If the parents are not US citizens, they can’t pass US citizenship to their children. They can only pass on their own citizenship.
Everyone in the Country is subject to our laws, but that is not the full and complete jurisdiction of the US government.
The off-topic discussion has turned to the deliberate Democrat abuse and corruption of the 14th Amendment as part of their strategy to obtain political hegemony in Washington DC. And through that control of the federal judiciary and bureaucracies through political apparatchiks like Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, James Comey, etc. They wrote a book on it long before Trump ever ran for office, proclaiming that Illegal Alien Demography Is Democrat Political Destiny.
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.
Federal courts will define what ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means legally.
In my opinion, given the actions of Chief Justice Roberts and other Justices, both in finding Obamacare constitutional as supposed “tax law” and giving assent to Obama then amending Obamacare with his phone and pen rather than through the legislative branch, as well as the 2016 election issues they refused to hear both before and after the election, Trump’s move to eliminate birthright citizenship in this manner is doomed to fail.
Hollywood John Roberts is not going to endanger his favored place on the Washington DC cocktails and canapes party circuit by agreeing with Trump that being illegally in the USA doesn’t make you subject to the jurisdiction of the USA – rather than subject to the jurisdiction of the country you came from to illegally enter the USA. You can be subject to the jurisdiction of which country your lawyer chooses! Whether you’re an Illegal Alien or the child of a Communist China ambassador or consular official born in an American hospital.
Justice Comey-Barrett will punt on that one as she has on other cases i.e. government contracting out political censorship of opponents to willing social media.
Even odds Justice Kavanaugh would join them to punt on that. He will twist himself into a pretzel trying to avoid changes to previous decisions.
The John Roberts/Comey-Barrett/Kavanaugh wing of SCOTUS is loath to rule on anything that could lead to them being accused of being political. They have to be pushed into a corner like trapped rats, no longer able to avoid it, before they’re forced to straight on deal with an issue like the resulting Dobbs decision on the claimed existence of a right to elective birth control abortions.
Not to mention mobs of raging Democrat fascists rioting just a few feet from the front door of their houses in “protest” (not attempts to intimidate of course – that’s a specified felony!)
Old Airborne Dog
I was just thinking of this very issue. I had hoped that President Trump’s executive order would cause the Supreme Court to finally settle this issue, but it sounds like SCOTUS might avoid taking a stance.
I think SCOTUS will take it. The whole thing devolves into, what does “under the jurisdiction” mean. Mexicans here legally, picking vegetables, are most like “under the jurisdiction.” Mexicans who swim the Rio Grande, and sneak into the country, are arguably not under the jurisdiction.
Vacationers, here legally, are also probably “under the jurisdiction.” But, the issue needs to be cleaned up. Congress has, in the past, defined citizenship most often to make it more inclusive, but I see no reason why it could not be made more restrictive too. People did not do international vacations much, back in the 1500s in England. Also, children of invading armies are not natural born citizens. But that dates back to a time when citizenship was through the father.
Let me give you an example. Boris and Natasha, members of the Russian Army Intelligence Corps, sneak across the border to spy on Area 51. It is boring work, and Boris and Natasha get it on. They are, in fact, members of an invading army. They have a kid, who is delivered at a Las Vegas hospital. Is the kid a natural born citizen.
Scenario Two. After a few years of spying, Boris gets kind of tired of sex with Natasha only, so he sneaks off to Las Vegas, on occasion, and has a girlfriend there, GiGi, an American employee of one of George Soros’ NGOs. GiGi gets knocked up and has little Georgy. Is Georgy a natural born citizen?
Question 3: How, as a practical matter, does anyone keep track of this???
Question 4: In a time of population decline, and a stupidity increase across the American Left, who is pretty confused about cis sex in general, are more foreign citizens moving here, a bad thing???
Uhm Floyd bad example.
Here’s a better one.
You have a guy here on a diplomatic mission for his country.
He brings his wife. She gets pregnant and has a kid while he is stationed here.
Their child does not get US Citizenship automatically because he was born here.
This exception… kind of opens the door to the legal question of if you’re not here legally then you shouldn’t get automatic citizenship due to being born in the US.
Not sure how SCOTUS will go on this because it depends on the arguments being made.
In front of them.
This is definitely one that they will take. As to when…
Who knows. However until they decide… Trump’s EO is in force.
-G
Legal status is irrelevant. Trump cannot sign a paper and amend the Constitution.
“Defining” is not “amending.” “Jurisdiction is a legal term. And, a tricky one. Take Gumby’s example above. French ambassador is NOT here under the jurisdiction of the USA. As a diplomat, he is here under the jurisdiction of France. Pierre, the French ambassador, drives his Bugatti at 90 mph on an American Air Force Base school zone, in Texas. He is given a ticket by the MPs. Is he under the jurisdiction of the USA?
Amazing – for once you are correct.
People who are here illegally are still subject to US jurisdiction.
But mostly this is for show. There will likely be a court battle. I beleive Trump will lose.
But it will waste lots of left wing nut legal resources.
One of the thing with these 200 EO’s is that The Solicitor General and the DOJ will defend them all – that is their job.
All the challenges will have the bill footed by democratic donors.
This is much the same as the fact that Trump had to foot his legal bills against democrats lawfare.
While Biden had DOJ paid for by government.
I think he can and he just
did…
Did I tell you Kamala lost?
Did I tell you that America has rejected the leftist agenda of stupidity and WOkE?
Enjoy!
Why not? “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did. The president of South Korea is in prison right now for declaring martial law as “Crazy Abe” did.
Trump cannot sign a paper and amend the Constitution.
Bolshevik Barack usurped the Constitution by using his phone and pen to replace the Legislative Branch and amend the legislation of The Affordable Care Act to add his exchanges after Obamacare started failing right out of the gate.
Of course, The Mad Magical Marxist Brown Clown was not Trump when he changed the Constitution with his mighty phone and pen. So the Democrat Different Double Standards applies.
Old Airborne Dog
The EO is mostly for show. It does not change enforcement of immigration laws. If the parents are here illegally, they will get deported.
Their child whether a citizen or not, is going to be deported.
This would only matter if 2 decades later the child came to the US as an adult – once they are an adult they are free to enter as a citizen.
They would be free to enter as a child – but only under the guardianship of adults who were here legally.
The FACT that you are a child citizen does not mean the US is deporting your parents while allowing you to stay.
I think what the EO will do, is get the matter before SCOTUS. I do not think Trump will win, but there are valid questions. When possible, the conservative SCOTUS refrains from activism or wild new interpretations. And, since many illegal aliens have been released thru the court system, they are arguably here under the jurisdiction, however narrowly that term is construed.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal residents of the United States. Again from that decision:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Jurisdiction references citizenship… under the jurisdiction of blah blah…a citizen of blah blah…
One can naturalize under the jurisdiction of the United States. Immigration laws are part of the jurisdiction of the US and not the jurisdiction of another nation. It’s not a game of tag and alla alla in free.
Let’s do this – if a child is born in the USA it’s a citizen and gives citizenship to parents and grandparents etc?
The 14th is a period piece. Are we talking about the 14th?
It is illegal, like very illegal, to deport citizens. Violation of core rights.
As the law has been applied over the past century – Boris and Natasha’s child born in the US is a US citizen unless Borris and Natasha are members of a foreign government stationed in the US – I do not think Spies count. The subject to the jurisdiction clause does NOT mean – in the US illegally.
It means in the US legally, But subject to the jurisdiction of and acting as representatives of a foreign country. That is Foreign military, and embassy/consulate staff.
Kind of in Reverse – John McCain was born on a US military base in Panama. He is a natural born US citizen, and NOT a citizen of Panama.
Under the holding in Wong Kim Ark (1898), children of invading armies are not natural born citizens. They argue about this a lot over at Free Republic.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
So how about this one? A child born to an adult male and a minor female. The male is a British subject and the female a US citizen. I believe the law would require that the child be given the citizenship of the adult male. Whether born on US soil or not, what do you legal experts think?
Right, and then the child becomes Prime Minister like Winston Churchill.
Worse, President of the United States. Barrack. Oblamo
A long time ago, yes. Now, the mother being an American is enough, if born in the USA
THIS is why obama is not a natural born citizen.
His place of birth was a red herring.
obama, being very generous, is a dual citizen per the Founders and the Constitution.
Oh paleeze. Great way to get a Manchurian candidate. The founders were that stoopid. 😂
That is opposite of what the Framers of the 14th said.
Subject to the jurisdiction means full and complete jurisdiction — legal and political jurisdiction.
Omg 😂
Under the jurisdiction of another nation as a citizen…
A national is under the jurisdiction of another nation as a citizen of that nation. The birth cert was used by children of non citizens to obtain US passports and voting, DL etc. They knew. The parents or grandparents or great grands just remained hidden. It’s not a good way to live so it’s time to fix it.
Please be aware illegal nationals of other nations do not swear allegiance to the usa in all cases with or without oath. Citizens also falsely swear.
It’s Obama’s USA so anything goes.
Adios
@Floyd Vacationers, here legally, are also probably “under the jurisdiction.”
The short answer is that, if I had to place a serious bet, it would be that Hollywood John Roberts will turn himself inside out in hopes of punting instead of deciding this issue. He, Comey-Barrett, and Kavanaugh remember all too well the reception Democrat rage mobs gave them outside their homes when the Dobbs decision was leaked.
I would like to think that to be a foreign national under the jurisdiction of the USA, that status in the USA is achieved by applying for and going through the process of obtaining one of the many types of visas available. The voluntary act of making that request and it being granted by the USA with that visa is what places you under American jurisdiction. When you refuse to do that, you are subject to US law – but you were never under the jurisdiction of the USA by first applying and then obtaining a visa as permission to enter.
“Jurisdiction” is going to be very muddy waters with multiple currents. Even if we had a diligent SCOTUS and justices who were all textualists/originalists without an activist among them doing their damndest to legislate their political goals from the bench.
In helping some of the Canadian members of our shooting club who regularly bring their firearms down into the USA to engage in both recreational and competitive shooting, I helped by providing them with the documentation for their ATF Form 6NIA. In reading the instructions for that form (pages!), it appears that the State Department considers vacationers entering the USA for a day of shopping at Costco, a few days of shooting smallbore competition, a week of gambling at Lost Wages, etc as Nonimmigrant Aliens, people who were lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
But there’s more! Our Canadian visitors, shoppers, friends, cross-border family members are NOT required by our State Department to apply for and obtain a B-2 nonimmigrant visa, even the snowbirds that head down to Arizona, Florida, etc for almost half the year.
Meanwhile, one of those club members coming down from Canada is a Mexican citizen, living and working in Canada on a Canadian work visa for almost ten years. He isn’t so lucky. He needed to apply for a B-2 “sticker visa” just to cross the border to hit the lakeside pub in Rexford a few minutes away from the border crossing – because he was a Mexican citizen living in Canada, not a Canadian citizen.
Clear as mud so far? And we haven’t even gotten past visa requirements to legally be in the USA yet, much less arrived at jurisdiction.
So nonimmigrant aliens are those legally in the USA, who were granted a nonimmigrant visa (or weren’t required to get one despite what a government form says) at the point where they legally reported to a CBP officer at a designated border point of entry. Which is the complete opposite of an Illegal Alien who does the opposite, including nonimmigrant visa holders who entered legally but then overstayed the time limit of that nonimmigrant visa and by doing that became Illegal Aliens.
That can further muddy the waters.
If they are issued a nonimmigrant visa at Eureka Montana when they tell the CBP officer they are coming down for a week to enjoy the ambiance of The Last Best Place, and the wife drops their foal at a local midwife’s place here in Whitefish, was the mother (and child) under the jurisdiction of the USA because they placed themselves in US jurisdiction by obtaining and holding that nonimmigrant alien visa?
After all, there’s a record of her crossing and being issued a nonimmigrant alien American visa by the CBP officer when she entered. Whereas an Illegal Alien is just that, a person illegally inside the USA without a visa issued to those who place themselves under the jurisdiction of the USA.
Trump (and we) are probably going to lose this one while Hollywood John Roberts and Comey-Barrett seek refuge in those muddied waters. Inertia by allowing the status quo to continue is a much safer path forward than a decision that outrages half the country and has Democrats attacking SCOTUS again.
If it weren’t being so clearly abused and corrupted, it wouldn’t matter. But this is the Democrats’ Demography Is Our Political Destiny in Action, and right now it looks like all they’ve got.
Remember when good ol’ Ted Kennedy assured Americans that the Democrat changes to our immigration laws would not be abused in ways that changed American demographics?
Good times, huh?
Old Airborne Dog
@Karen
Nope. We aren’t through the woods yet. Yesterday was a wow moment, to be sure, but that was only a small beginning. It’ll likely be very, very ugly. We need a couple of more election cycles to really seal the deal, the radical morons will not cease to be radical or moronic, doubly so since the modern left has given them a taste of power. We are not done, but it is a great beginning. Hold fast!
There is nothing to “settle”–just more slop you believe from MAGA media that tries to pretend there’s some issue here or some way the fat slob you worship can be correct–which there isn’t. From “My Law Questions” May 16, 2024:
“The citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution confers automatic citizenship on anyone who is “born or naturalized within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Establishing whether or not a person was born or naturalized in the U.S. has historically been relatively easy. The question of whether a person born or naturalized in the U.S. is also subject to its jurisdiction has been less clear when applied to certain populations.
In court cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it does not apply to children of diplomats, ministers, consuls, or embassy staff. As foreign nationals in the U.S. on the business of their governments, the parents and children owe their allegiance to their home country. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and are immune from most laws and from prosecution.
A child born in the U.S. to parents who are not on assignment by a foreign government is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and is considered a citizen. The parents could be traveling in the U.S. on vacation or in the process of legal or illegal immigration. In legal terms, the distinguishing point is not whether the parents are citizens of another country, but whether the parents are active agents of a foreign government, immune from the laws of the U.S. If the parents are in the U.S. of their own free will, the child born in the U.S. is considered a U.S. citizen.
This interpretation of the subject to the jurisdiction part of the citizenship clause is hotly debated. It grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children who are born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens of another country. The loophole effectively allows illegal immigrants to have children in the country who automatically become citizens, making it much more complicated to deport families with mixed legal status. Opponents of this interpretation argue that the illegal parents are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. than the diplomat, since the U.S. would deport them back to their own country rather than exert legal jurisdiction over them, and the children should have the same status as the parents despite their birth on U.S. soil.”
SO, the distinguishing difference here is that a child born of parents who are present in the US doing business of a foreign government are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That doesn’t apply to migrants whose children are born here.
@Gigi
Pbbbbllllt. 😛😛😛
It is astonishing that so many words can be used to say nothing whatsoever. Are you using a comment plugin? Have you grafted a plugin to your brain? Fingers? Hmm? I generally swat mosquitos, but by all means spew your idiocy for all to see; quite literally nobody cares anymore, not that we cared all that much before.
The bite is supremely annoying, but it goes away on its own. Meh. November already disinfected you clowns. I guess it’s a slow death.
I cited from a reliable source–“My Law Questions”. What do you have that equals their interpretation? Squat. The MAGA indoctrination is deep. You don’t have any authoritative source from which to formulate a response, so you attack me–which is exactly what MAGA media does. It’s not like there is a give-and-take citing cases that have decided this issue–because the issue IS decided. Except that Trump doesn’t like it–so MAGA media pretends there’s some validity or some “undecided” question. There isn’t. Yet, you say that I am the one who is an idiot.
I cited from a reliable source–“My Law Questions”.
No doubt SCOTUS regularly hears references to “My Law Questions” from lawyers appearing before the court.
Every bit as persuasive as “Wikipedia”, “factcheck.org” and Gigi’s favorite reliable source: CNN.
Gigi is the avatar for the term “Marxist Useful Idiot”. And a good example for George to argue that Europeans like Vattel said women should NEVER be allowed to vote.
Old Airborne Dog.
Gigi – your citation is incredibly poorly written. While I beleive that the citizens of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens,
And we really do not want this any other way. Your my law question mucked up the answer.
Soldiers stations in foreign countries, embasy/consulate employees are all subject to US laws. Their children are NOT citizens.
SOME embasy and consulate positions have diplomatic immunity.
While foreign soldiers generally have no immunity.
They are STILL not citizens. The issue is NOT whether you are here legally. It is NOT whether you have diplomatic immunity.
It is whether you are here openly as a direct employee/representative of a foreign power.
I would also note there were lots of cases related to this in the late 19th century – many of them regarding chinese immigrants.
As a rule SCOTUS has been openly hostile to Asian immigrants to the US.
So the case law might not be helpful.
Personally this is a mistake for many reasons. But it is not a big mistake.
It is likely that there are only tens of thousands of children this applies to.
Further a minor child is not going to be allowed to stay in the US even if a citizen, absent some guardians to take the child.
So the number of cases this will effect is near zero.
This is virtue signaling to Trump faithful.
And wasting the legal resources of democrats.
But it is not consequential. It will have no impact on who gets deported.
Believe
At least spell check as you kick GooGoo’s butt!
🤣🫣
OAD – let’s say you’re right that JR and ACB punt, and BK has a 50% chance of punting. Doesn’t that mean there is a 50% chance Scotus will take it up – since Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito are likely to vote to grant cert and only 4 votes are needed for that?
You are right Old Man, but I think Airborne was referring to the final decision and not grant Certiorari.
I am hoping that Kavanaugh comes through and possibly even Barrett which gives us 5.
Perhaps I misread what he meant by “punt”?
This is going to be decided based on past precedent.
It is likely going to be a 9-0 decision,
and I beleive Trump will lose.
Further it does not matter one way or the other regarding deportation
But if you want to avoid the children of illegal immigrants born here from growing up to be criminals or terrorists it matters ALOT.
Nations with out birthright citizenship have WORSE problems with immigration that we do.
The problem is that these children born to illegal immigrants immediately become anchor babies. They also become immediate recipients of all social benefits offered to an American citizen. The entire thing can be remedied by stipulating born to legal immigrants.
@OMK Doesn’t that mean there is a 50% chance Scotus will take it up?
I think they’ll almost certainly get Cert – the activist Marxist Justices will line up to knock Trump down so those votes are already there.
By “punt”, what I meant was that (irrespective of previous SCOTUS cases I am unaware of), I believe Roberts and Comey-Barrett at least will join the activist Marxists to leave the status quo in place. Doing so for no other reason than then they will be left in peace.
Kavanaugh, if I had to bet, will join them because he loathes disturbing long standing legal practices unless backed into a corner and forced to do so. Hey, if this court hasn’t changed it before I got here, what’s the good reason I should be part of changing it now?
Trump’s EO banning birthright citizenship is a dead man walking. And I don’t believe for one moment that his White House consul and other lawyers told him any different while he was drafting up that populist order during the time between the election and his inauguration. So I’ll assume there’s a deeper plan beyond simply getting the fans jumping up and down in their seats.
But he won’t have SCOTUS on his side going into this. This court’s record says the opposite when you look at justices Roberts, Comey-Barrett and Kavanaugh.
Hollywood John Roberts’ reasoning to allow Obamacare survive because he found it to be “tax law” says the lengths he will go to in avoiding having the media and Democrats hounding him. The Legislative Branch that writes all tax law didn’t realize they were writing tax law when they cobbled together Obamacare – they needed Roberts and SCOTUS to clue them in to what they had done? Seriously? And Obama had the power to act as the Legislative Branch, amending Obamacare all by himself with his phone and his pen????
As for Comey-Barrett, she’s increasingly looking like another Roberts in the making, heading off into the shrubs and bushes trying to figure out how many legal angels can dance on the head of a pin to determine her decisions. Her decision she wrote for the majority decision concerning government contracting out censorship was a real head scratcher to me (not to mention Thomas and Alito).
Aside from any prior SCOTUS law, I think a central theme will come down to whether or not SCOTUS considers being subject to American law is another way of saying subject to American jurisdiction. I believe they will say they are the same thing.
That makes a certain amount of sense to me. At the same time, deliberately and illegally entering and being in America to have a child in the belief it will provide you with amnesty from your Illegal Alien related crimes (and taxpayer funding) plus skipping the line and proving you’re worthy of being accepted as an immigrant is a gross stain on the concept of birthright citizenship.
My distant memories of my law courses completing my criminology degree dredges up memories that citizenship was and is still tied to the old English common law “yeoman’s right of the soil” i.e. born on this soil, this is your country. SCOTUS will stick to supporting that.
If it weren’t being abused by so many criminal Illegal Aliens, at a time when we are 40 years past Reagan’s amnesty for all Illegal Aliens and now have an additional 30 MILLION Illegal Aliens, I doubt very much that few Americans would care. It’s the abuse that makes it stand out.
In my amateur opinion, Trump’s time would be better spent telling those Illegal Aliens “Your child may have birthright citizenship, but you are being deported and we are passing legislation to make future visas and citizenship prohibited for life for Illegal Aliens who committed specific immigration crimes”.
After all, we don’t allow natural born citizens to stay out of jail for life because they have young children at home.
Trump’s time would be better spent making the consequences of being an Illegal Alien, fraudulently claiming amnesty, etc acts that would result in a lifetime prohibition from obtaining any kind of US visa. Ditto ensuring serious consequences for those employing Illegal Aliens.
Again, our current immigration law bans our Canadian neighbors entry for life if they have a conviction from their youth for misdemeanor impaired driving, possession of marijuana, common assault as a result of a fight in a bar, etc. A lifetime ban for committing Illegal Alien offenses can’t be considered harsh.
Old Airborne Dog
OAD I am not sure of the cases – but I beleive this was actually settled late in the 19th century, the last time we had mass immigration.
THAT is what is likely to prove controlling.
This is likely to result in a 9-0 Scotus decision – that will be based on stare decisis.
I do not think this is actually an open issue.
It is just one we have not addressed for over a century.
@John Say OAD I am not sure of the cases – but I beleive this was actually settled late in the 19th century, the last time we had mass immigration. THAT is what is likely to prove controlling.
I am at best vaguely familiar with those prior cases regarding immigrant families, not immigrant children born of illegal aliens in America without lawful permission. That is far too many decades ago and I wasn’t interested any more than I had to be at the time.
My lack of knowledge of those cases aside (which could be interesting to read), I think the most overriding, most likely to be controlling factor, is that Roberts and Comey-Barrett siding with Trump on this to allow his EO to reverse decades long American immigration policy regarding birthright citizenship is like expecting to see a school of anvils swimming up a river to spawn.
They will absolutely not go there when they know what the reaction of every single Democrat and the Democrat-Media Propaganda Complex will be.
SCOTUS spent a century futzing around with an inability to figure out what the words “Shall not be infringed…” in the Second Amendment mean. Where every other Amendment is a restriction on what government can do to citizens rights, SCOTUS has flipped the script on the Second Amendment, treating it as a permission controlled by government respecting whether and under what conditions citizens can own and even bear arms as civilians.
That is a FAR more critical issue that concerns FAR more Americans than this one does. Anyone who thinks SCOTUS has been avoiding acknowledging obvious reality with the Second Amendment for the last century and continues to do so hasn’t seen anything yet when SCOTUS has this land in their laps requiring confirmation or rejection of Trump’s EO.
The real answer may well be simple: “subject to the laws” means also “subject to the jurisdiction” – case closed.
But Roberts and Comey-Barrett are NEVER going to write a decision stating that Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment is correct.
Old Airborne Dog
‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ – Justice Department official Michael Sherwin
“A whiff of grapeshot” – Napoleon Bonaparte
Two totalitarians on how to use fear to suppress the public’s right to protest, but only one of whom was sworn to uphold Constitutional freedoms.
The shenanigans continue.
Last night, an excited Elon Musk told the massive crowd, “My heart is with you all,” before putting this hand on his heart and throwing his hand out to the crowd.
Activists edited out his words, and posted the clip, accusing Musk of making the Nazi salute on national live television. The fact that they edited out the words that gave the gesture context indicates they knew it was a false accusation.
The Nazi salute does not including putting one’s hand on one’s heart, and of course not the words about one’s heart being with everyone.
It was the same as throwing the crowd a kiss.
This is the “very fine people” lie, again, the first day in office.
I hope Elon Musk sues. CNN might have a few bucks left after losing its latest defamation suit.
“My heart is with you all” could easily be words spoken from one fascist to other fascists. Nazis are capable of sentiment. Uncle Adolf was fond of dogs.
Gotta love the snapshot of the Trump family junta overseeing the militaristic marching display at Capital One Arena. (Lose the beret, Ivanka).
Too bad I was out of popcorn yesterday.
Two months after the nation repudiated the “Trump is Hitler” insanity that caused them to lose the election (or at least contributed to the loss) the same morons trot out the “Hitler” thing again.
Is anyone else sick to death over the stupidity of the left?
PS. STOP THE ANONYMOUS INSANITY NOW!
TRUMP STILL SUCKS
Trump still won. You still lost. You are a loser. Pretty simple.
So does Gigi. On you.
You are a very brave and very desperate man to allow that.
Hullbobby: I was hasty in equating Mr. Musk with Nazi sympathizers. Orangutan followers would be a more apt description.
Anon: You may not have been hasty. According to Al Jazeera, Musk turned around to face the crowd behind him in the arena and for the second time gave a Roman salute. We’ll never know if he placed hand over heart preceding this second gesture.
But…you win, Anonymous. Trumpists will always be losers.
HullBobby,
Think of it this way, as long as they continue their stupidity, they will continue to lose.
“My heart is with you all” could easily be words spoken from one fascist to other fascists.
So it seems “could easily be the words” is the new test for what constitutes a fascist in America. That means that, if a Democrat says, “I like franks and beans,” and some fascists also like that combo, that phrase also could easily be the words of one fascist to another; conclusion: the Democrat speaker is probably a fascist.
Or to take anonymous’s example: Hitler liked dogs. So anyone else who likes dogs (and says so) must be a Nazi.
This is the state of what passes for logic among today’s American left.
Ivanka wasn’t wearing a beret. She was wearing a ladies hat, similar to the pillbox hats worn by Jackie Kennedy.
Marching bands of American children are not militaristic displays nor are they unique to GOP presidential inaugurations. Democrat presidents have them too.
No need to be so fearful.
“Marching bands of American children are not militaristic displays nor are they unique to GOP presidential inaugurations. Democrat presidents have them too.”
Meh. I understand your point, and it is valid, but this example, not so much. I spent 5 years in marching bands in HS & college. I can assure you that nearly all of the music, uniforms, and other trappings were very much intended to emulate those of military marching bands, and much of that was in turn intended to evoke images of marching fighting units themselves. Marching string bands (mummers, etc) were a different story.
Karen you are right on again! Of course the same folks that claimed UNEDITED video of Biden doing his Biden thing were called “deep fakes” are now claiming an EDITED version of Musk is the old Hitler attack.
If it wasn’t so stupid and simplistic maybe it wouldn’t be so laughable.
“I hope Elon Musk sues. CNN might have a few bucks left ”
Maybe he could get a large enough judgement to make CNN completely bankrupt, then acquire all of its remaining assets in lieu of payment. “XNN” has kind of a nice ring to it, doncha think?
This whole sorted bad behavior by the Democratic Party’s apparatchik is mind boggling: Pardon Me do you need a Pardon! Looking at just one of the pardonee’s General Milley: I ask what did he do that would require protection from prosecution?
The next question I ask, how can you issue a pardon on an occurrence/issue that hasn’t been charged as a crime, and to what specificity of the law is the pardon for?
I’ll leave with a couple of quotes:
Alfred North Whitehead “Dialogues”
“There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil.”
John Locke “On Politics and Education” Part 9, Section 143, 4
“(4) Captiousness is another fault opposite to civility; not only because it often produces misbecoming and provoking expressions and carriage; but because it is a tacit accusation and reproach of some incivility taken notice of in those whom we are angry with. Such a suspicion or intimation cannot be borne by any one without uneasiness. Besides, one angry body discomposes the whole company, and the harmony ceases upon any such jarring. “
Jonathan: It appears you are conflicted. First, you lament that DJT pardoned the most violent of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Then you falsely claim blame the Biden DOJ that has “made the strongest case for presidential pardons”. And what is your only example of that? Jake Chansely.
Chansely may be the “iconic image of the riot [should read “insurrection]” but he is no innocent. The self-described “QAnon Shaman” was a big DJT supporter, attending many of his rallies in his getup. Inside the Capitol Chansley spurred on the insurrectionists yelling VP Pence was a “Traitor” and declaring “It’s Only a Matter of time, Justice Is Coming”. After his arrest Chansley pled guilty. At sentencing he told the judge: “Men of honor admit when they’re wrong. Not just publicly but to themselves. I was wrong for entering the Capitol. I have no excuse. No excuse whatsoever. The behavior was indefensible”. Because of his good behavior in prison Chansely got an early release after serving a year and a half. That leniency shows, contrary to your claim, that Chansley was not more “harshly” treated by the criminal justice system.
What you conveniently ignore is that DJT not only pardoned Chansley but the really bad actors–like Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, and Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oathkeepers. Rhodes led a group of Oathkeepers who broke into the Capitol. Rhodes stashed a large cache of weapons across the Potomac River to be used in the event DJT called on them to help enforce martial law. Rhodes people beat and injured Capitol police.
It’s one thing to pardon someone who committed simple trespass and didn’t injure anyone. It’s another to pardon the worst of the worst. And what message is DJT sending by these pardons? Crime pays and Tarrio, Rhodes and the others who engaged violent attacks on the Capitol police now know DJT has their backs if he decides he doesn’t want to leave office in 2028. DJT now has his own personal militia–the “brownshirts” who will protect him. DJT has shown by his words and now his actions that “law and order’ is not at the top of his agenda. It’s all about retribution and vengeance–forget “reconciliation”!
The cult of trump is strong. Only believe what the cult leader tells you. It’s so simple to live that way. No thinking required, just believe the master.
Yet it is those like you and DM that can not get the facts straight.
You write alot about Chanley – it is clear you do not like him because he is a trump supporter. But nothing you stated about Chanley is a crime.
The remarks of the Judge are more reason that Trump was right in pardoning these people.
YOUR remarks make it clear what everyone knows – the Crime these men are guilty of is supporting Trump.
Not violating the law.
There is video of Chanely entering the capitol through an open door – he did not tresspass – even by the lefts stupid claims that they are allowed to lockdown the pre-eminent government forum for free speech in the world.
Most in this country were agasht when China sent tanks into Tianamen square after protestors. The Tianamen protestors were violating the law in a country without free speech protections. They had been asked to disburse repeatedly – and they refused. They were tresspassing.
Yet the world looked on in horror as CCP soldiers cleared these students and locked them up.
The same happened more recently to protestors in HongKong.
Aparently those of you on the left only support protests against other countries.
Chanley was protesting, he was engaged in free speech.
Whether you think his speech was wrong is irrlevant.
What is it that Chanely did wrong that he was supposed to be remorseful about ?
He did not tresspass, he did not engage in violence, he followed the directions of the CP.
He appears to have said somethings you do not like.
That is his right.
It is his right even if he is completely full of schiff.
Enrique Tarrio was not present in washington on J6.
Stewart Rhodes did not enter the capitol on J6.
You say they are bad actors – what did they do ?
Contra your idiocy – there was no insurrection on J6.
There was a protest.
Had there been an insurrection rhoades and thousands of others would have come heavily armed.
They did not. This insurrection claim has been nonsense from day one.
You claim Rhoades and Tarrio are the worst of the worst.
If they are your poster boys for evil wrongdoers – you fail miserably.
Again all you are doing is PROVING this was about free speech, about lawfare, about TDS.
You say Rhoades stashed weapons – SO WHAT ?
Did he bring them to the Capitol ? No.
You claim you know what Rhoades intended to do.
Maybe your right, maybe your wrong. One of the problems with mind reading is that
you are now making a crime out of your guess as to what someone else intended.
There is no crime of pure intention.
Crimes are acts.
Stashing guns is an act that is NOT a crime.
If a man with an italian surname buys a bunch of guns, puts them in his hotel room and then visits a bank.
you do not get to charge them with armed robbery.
It does not matter if Tarrio leads the proud boys, or Rhoades leades the Oath Keepers.
It does not matter if they are grand dragons in the KKK.
There is no evidence that Rhoades engaged in any violence on J6, and he did not enter the Capitol.
Tarrio was not even in DC,
Chanley entered the capitol through an open door. Followed the instructions of the CP engaged in no violence, was guided through the caitol by the CP and left peacefully when asked.
Your poster boys for “insurrection” are the EVIDENCE or YOUR lawlessness.
I do not like either of these three people – my dislike for them – like my dislike for you, does not make you or them into criminals.
“It’s another to pardon the worst of the worst.”
the people YOU chose as the worst of the worst, did not hurt anyone, did not engage in violence, did not tresspass.
All you are doing is proving EXCATLY why these pardons were necescary.
Rhoades and Tarrio received the longest sentences. They engaged in no violence. Neither entered the capitol.
What they are guilty of is leading organizations you do not like, and beleiving and saying things you do not like.
All you are doing is proving Turley’s case.
Well, he did it–he rewarded his Big Pharma donors by rescinding Biden’s Executive Order to make drugs more affordable for folks on Medicare and Medicaid:
“The key components of executive order 14087 implemented by Biden are as follows:
Medicare $2 drug list model: This initiative sought to cap certain generic drug prices at $2 for Medicare beneficiaries, enhancing affordability.
Cell and gene therapy access model: Designed to improve access to high-cost therapies for Medicaid recipients, this model aimed to negotiate pricing and facilitate coverage.
Accelerating clinical evidence model: Focused on expediting the availability of effective treatments by streamlining the evidence-gathering process for new drugs.
In the executive order, signed in 2022 by Biden, the then-president said: “Too many Americans face challenges paying for prescription drugs. On average, Americans pay two to three times as much as people in other countries for prescription drugs, and one in four Americans who take prescription drugs struggle to afford their medications. Nearly three in 10 American adults who take prescription drugs say that they have skipped doses, cut pills in half or not filled prescriptions due to cost.”
The potential impact of rescinding executive order 14087 is as follows:
Halted development of cost-reduction models: The directive for the Department of Health and Human Services to develop and test new models aimed at lowering drug costs through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has been withdrawn. This move could slow or halt progress on initiatives that were designed to make prescription medications more affordable.
Potential increase in out-of-pocket expenses: Without the implementation of new models focused on reducing costs, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries might continue to face high out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs, possibly affecting access to certain medications.
Uncertainty in future drug pricing policies: The rescission creates uncertainty regarding the federal government’s approach to addressing prescription drug costs, which could leave beneficiaries unsure about future measures to control or reduce expenses.”
ATS government price controls do not work.
Only idiot left wing nuts beleive otherwise.
I would be happy to chastize Trump for rescinding a Biden EO that did some good.
But the world does not respond to our demands. The closest thing we have ever seen to a working command economy was the Nazis
Is that the model you want to follow ?
Professor Turley, why isn’t the DOJ guilty of violating the US Constitution regarding due process and a right to a speedy trial?
Biden’s/Obama’s DOJ treated J6ers worse than terrorists and murderers.
I hope many of the J6ers file civil suits against Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray, the DC US Attorney, and many of the DC federal judges!
Trump’s attempt to repeal birthright citizenship through an executive order will absolutely fail. Even his allies on the Supreme Court won’t be able to uphold the flawed interpretation he relies on. This notion is fundamentally rooted in white nationalism and relies on a misguided approach to constitutional interpretation. There’s simply no other way to see it.
White nationalists are increasingly anxious about losing their racial majority in the coming years, especially as the latest census indicates that non-Caucasian citizens are projected to outnumber them. This fear is behind the “great replacement theory,” uses the idea that the constitution is interpreted wrong to lend the idea that birthright citizenship means what they want it to mean. It’s pretty obvious what the authors of the 14th amendment intended. Anyone born within the jurisdiction of the authority of the constitution is automatically a citizen.
People born in the U.S. are citizens .. . from the Gulf of America to the shining sea.
And people born in the U.S. with two parents, or at least a father, who are citizens at the time of birth of the candidate are “natural born citizens,” per the Law of Nations, 1758.
Obviously, you haven’t read the 14th Amendment. This will upheld on appeal.
Also, to strengthen the case, Congress should immediately pass a bill supporting this Executive Order by legislatively banning birthright citizenship.
Chopper, since this is IN the Constitution (via the 14th Amendment), a law passed by Congress won’t work (just as a Presidential proclamation won’t work either). It will take a new Amendment to change a previous one. I realize that understanding Presidential proclamations is at a level above basic Civics, but at some point folks have got to realize that such proclamations are almost as bad as the Supreme Court “creating law” based on the justices’ whims, rather than what the Constitution and laws–established by “the peoples’ representatives” say.
Generally you’re right that the acts of Congress must yield to the demands of the Constitution. But sometimes the Constitution leaves room for Congress to act. And 14A does give Congress power to enforce its provisions (see 14A.5). So I wonder, is it possible for Congress to design its enactment around the crucial phrase for birthright-citizenship purposes: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? Like, by making the person in question not subject to that jurisdiction?
@oldmanfromkansas: The definition of what the jurisdiction is in the 14th Amendment is a good question.
The legislative branch can pass a definition and President Trump can sign that legislation into law.
And Democrats would race to be the first in front of their cherry-picked Democrat federal judge like Chudkin to file lawsuits saying that the Executive Branch doesn’t have the power to interpret the Constitution.
Ultimately it would/will be before Hollywood John Roberts and SCOTUS to decide.
I wouldn’t bet anything more than pocket change that Roberts, Comey-Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh won’t avoid that threat to their peace and quiet by punting.
The Hollywood John Roberts who ruled that Obamacare was actually constitutional tax law – essentially claiming the Legislative Branch (that writes all tax law) didn’t realize they were writing tax law with Obamacare. Despite the fact that Democrats and President Obama were on record repeatedly publicly declaring it WASN’T A TAX – that Chief Justice Roberts will not agree with Trump (and others’) view Illegal Aliens are criminals not lawfully here rather than subject to US jurisdiction.
After all, if Illegal Aliens can be arrested and jailed by Republican state and federal government for crimes – surely they are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA and therefore their children are also born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That’s how Roberts and others will see it.
And… Think Of The Children!
I suppose Republicans could attempt an amendment to the 14th amendment in the next election. There’s too many Democrats whose political agenda depends on Illegal Alien Demographic Political Destiny to get the necessary votes for such an amendment.
This has about as much chance of surviving SCOTUS as a Democrat presidential/legislative attempt to claim the Second Amendment only provides that freedom to members of a militia – and only while they’re in uniform doing their job as part of the militia.
We are going to be dealing with the threat from the Soviet Democrats’ corrupt use of the 14th Amendment to achieve their Illegal Alien Demography Is Democrat Destiny for many years to come.
And all they have to do is get enough Illegal Aliens dependent on government to be voters to flip one of the large states and we will suffer under Democrat political hegemony in Washington DC.
Old Airborne Dog
They always leave out the part “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. Vattel’s “Law of Nations” is where the majority of our citizenship laws come from. The 14th Amend was written to give slaves the right of citizenship. It was never intended to give citizenship rights to anyone who wandered across our border. I don’t believe there is another country that does this.
I do not understand all the confusion on this.
The Framers of the 14th Amendment were very clear on the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.’
All courts followed this meaning until US v Ark when Grey changed full and complete jurisdiction of the US government — legal and political — to just legal jurisdiction.
Everyone in the Country is subject to our laws, but not everyone is subject to political jurisdiction.
Voting, serving on juries, political office, being drafted.
The Framers said it is BOTH legal and political jurisdiction.
I just don’t get why people are confused.
And why would you do this?
These are kids that know no other country. They grow up going to community schools. They serve in the military. They become doctors, lawyers. Their parents work in meat packing plants for low wages so you can have cheap meat to eat. Their parents pick the fresh vegetables you eat for a very low wage. They work as janitors in schools keeping school budgets low as they receive low wages.
What is it about kids born in the U.S. that you hate so much?
What is it about kids born in the U.S. that you hate so much?
That’s a stupid way to ask the question. The issue being discussed has to do with the proper interpretation of the US Constitution.
You, on the other hand, are asking a policy question and then pretending anyone who disagrees with you hates children. Is it because you’re too dull to be able to think of a policy reason – such as not incentivizing lawbreaking and uncontrolled immigration – that might motivate someone to disagree with you? If so, then you are doomed to lose every policy debate you engage in.
Uh, yeah, your side lost on that. Move along . . .
And why would you do this? These are kids that know no other country.
If you were just born, you aren’t sentient enough to know anything other than where your mama’s tits are located. But you wanted to talk about their criminal Illegal Alien parents whose first act on American soil was to show contempt for this country they’re stealing from by violating criminal law. You want to try the Democrat BS “who will pick your lettuce”.
So let’s talk about their wonderful parents. Then you can explain why you loath and hate American kids so much you want them paying taxes their entire lives to support your criminal Illegal Aliens Guest Democrat Voters.
Coles Notes On Illegal Aliens for Soviet Democrat Commies
8 U.S.C. §1324. (Bringing in OR harboring certain aliens)
Any person whether US citizen or Illegal Alien who brings to or harbors Illegal Aliens in the Unites States in any manner whatsoever other than at a designated port of entry commits a felony punishable by 10 years in jail.
8 U.S.C. § 1325 (Improper Entry by Alien):
Where an illegal alien enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers. Yep, it’s a crime punishable by up to two years in jail as well as a fine. And civil penalties can be levied on top of that.
8 U.S.C. § 1302 (Registration of Aliens):
Federal law requires all aliens, including illegal aliens, to register their presence if they remain in the United States for 30 days or longer. A crime, punishable by both jail and a fine – and not subject to any statute of limitations.
18 U.S.C. § 911 (False Personation of a U.S. Citizen):
Illegal aliens presenting themselves as U.S. citizens. For example, an illegal alien claiming U.S. citizenship while applying for and/or after being employed. A felony, punishable by up to five years in jail.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Fraud and False Statements):
Illegal aliens making false statements to the government or on official documents submitted to purchase a firearm, obtain a driver’s license, federal benefits, employment, etc. An example would be completing and submitting the I-9 Employment Eligibility form, or a form applying for federal housing. A felony, punishable by both a fine and up to five years imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information):
Otherwise known as “false ID” as the most common criminal example of this. Simple possession is enough. A felony, with up to fifteen years in jail as the penalty.
26 U.S.C. § 7203 (Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information, or Pay Tax):
If an illegal alien is working, not filing tax returns, and not paying taxes, that is a crime for them just as it is for legal residents and Americans. Fines and jail…
42 U.S.C. § 408 (Social Security Fraud):
This offense occurs when an illegal alien provides a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, to acquire a driver’s license, in order to obtain Section 8 housing, as just a few examples. A felony, punishable by both a fine and up to five years imprisonment, as well as the court possibly ordering restitution. Fines and jail…
50 U.S.C. App. 462(a) and 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(3) (Refusing or Evading Selective Service Registration):
Illegal aliens, male, between 18 and 26. A felony, punishable by five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.
How many felonies does it take before you cowardly Anonymous Democrats say “Okay, now THAT’S too many!”
Old Airborne Dog
George – First, it’s not so cut and dried. I’ve read law review articles and speeches taking different sides, and each has a colorable argument.* In quoting the 14th Amendment you conspicuously omitted the very phrase legal scholars frame their arguments around: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The jurisdictional qualifier is not, as you imply, phrased in terms of “within,” but “subject to.” There is a big difference between those two phrases.
Second, your suggestion the Citizenship Clause has anything to do with White nationalism is a tired old Marxist talking point that has no validity. Pro tip: if you want to make a point on this subject or another subject, and if you don’t want to be written off as a loon, you’re better off leaving that kind of tripe out of your comment. It only negates your credibility.
*Compare, e.g., Matthew Ing, Birthright Citizenship, Illegal Aliens, and the Original Meaning of the Citizenship Clause (Akron Law Review 2012), with William M. Stevens, Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflicting Cultures (Texas Wesleyan Law Review 2008).
Good article! Here is a direct link:
https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=txwes-lr
“ The jurisdictional qualifier is not, as you imply, phrased in terms of “within,” but “subject to.” There is a big difference between those two phrases.”
That’s a silly argument. The whole jurisdiction thing is pretty straightforward. Jurisdiction just means where the constitution is in effect. Clearly, it works within our borders, but outside of them, it doesn’t have any power. When it says “subject to,” it just means it applies here at home.
No, those two prepositions have different meanings. For example someone with diplomatic immunity might be within but not subject to. If you want to put forward an argument about the meaning of the constitutional text, at least quote it correctly. If you start your argument by changing the Constitution’s words, your argument is worthless.
An excellent article!!! Thank you!!!
FTA:
“Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States
now” (i.e., under the 1866 Act).”
Exactly what I have been posting in many and probably very annoying comments.
Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. They are criminals. We will willingly let the Supreme Court decide what the 1870s authors meant by “jurisdiction”.
Why would you “let the Supreme Court decide” what the English language says.
In 1973, the totally corrupt Supreme Court “decided” that abortion was a constitutional right, before the Supreme Court of 1973 read the clear English language of the Constitution and understood and revealed that abortion was distinctly not a constitutional right but a matter for State legislatures to decide legal or illegal.
“Trump’s attempt to repeal birthright citizenship through an executive order will absolutely fail. ”
Probably.
“This notion is fundamentally rooted in white nationalism and relies on a misguided approach to constitutional interpretation. There’s simply no other way to see it.”
False.
“This fear is behind the “great replacement theory,””
The great replacement theory was YOUR thing.
Some conservatives beleive you.
“It’s pretty obvious what the authors of the 14th amendment intended.”
The authors of the 14th amendment intended to assure that former slaves and the children of slaves were citizens.
There has never been any doubt of that intent.
But there is an enormous amount of cases in the 19th century that were openly hostile to asian immigrants including hostile decisions on citizenship.
Ultimately I beleive the courts resoclved this issue and that Trump will lose.
But claiming that the authors of the 14th amendment intended the children of illegal immigrants to be citizens is wishful thinking.
There is no chance they ever thought about the issue.
“Anyone born within the jurisdiction of the authority of the constitution is automatically a citizen.”
I agree, but that does not make the rest of what you wrote utter nonsense.
As it becomes clearer whether those who acted violently against law enforcement have been pardoned, I hope you’ll comment further. Regarding the gross breach of ethics and conflicts of interest by President Biden, I also hope you’ll comment on Trump creating crypto for MAGA supporters to buy up, thus apparently substantially enriching the himself and his family.
I also hope you’ll comment on Trump creating crypto for MAGA supporters to buy up, thus apparently substantially enriching the himself and his family.
I hope you can comment to explain to other Anonymous Democrats how President Trump offering a product for Americans to choose to buy or not is supposedly EXACTLY THE SAME THING as then Vice President Biden offering America for sale to the Communist Chinese, Putin, etc from the Vice President’s office.
Asking on behalf of honest Anonymous Democrats…
Honestly, I think the modern dems are likely done for a generation; their tripling down on their insanity almost assures it. Good riddance. The era that began in 2008 was the longest kind of slog imaginable, and it is unequivocally over. Noe that power has been wrested from their infantile hands, radicals will once again be relegated to at best, a mosquito in the ear, nothing more or less. Telling that Pelosi didn’t get a pardon. She is one of the few people on this earth I would describe as vile and evil, and she made her bed.
That’s the thing about insanity: if one legitimately suffers from it, they don’t know it. May her DNC rest in peace.
James,
A number of long time, traditional Democrats have publicly declared they lost the election as their far leftist part of their party is toxic. They need to give them the boot or they are going to continue to suffer losses not only in elections but in numbers as the sane and normal Democrats will ditch their own party to become Independents. Unfortunately for them based off a recent poll, the number of far leftists and traditional Democrats is nearly split down the middle. So, the far left appears to be there for the long term and will only double down or triple down on the woke leftist crazy.
@Upstate
No doubt, but collectively they have shown they will say and do quite literally anything to gain power; I have no doubt that whatever their sweet promises or (very much scripted) florid prose, once again in that position of power, they would simply and quickly resume stomping all over our faces and our freedoms, and in record time. They are part of a regime, period.
Dem voters that are still too privileged or asleep to see it – I no longer know what to say to those people, so I don’t. I will crawl out of their wreckage with everyone else that lacks a silver spoon, and we will leave them behind. They can figure out their existential crises on their own time and dime, just as every real adult human ever has.
I will never trust our DNC again, and I will never vote dem again, period, as long as I live. for anything. It is going to take *several* election cycles to finish off their hubris and madness. And to repeat myself, I am lifelong independent voter that voted for Obama the first time. Didn’t take too long to see what he was doing, and I regret it.
There are still some conservatives and liberals but conservatism is essentially dead. Liberalism is dead. The far left woke loonies and the right wing extremist populists are in control. Dems are antithetical to Mondale and Kennedy. Trump and his supporters are antithetical to Romney and Reagan.
Interesting article from an ex-TDS sufferer. An excerpt:
“My name is Peder and I suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And yet, because it is more mild and subtle, my TDS may be more dangerous. Even though I generally support Donald Trump’s policies, I accepted the idea that he is beyond the pale. I agreed that his aggressive tweets, coarse language, and addiction to hyperbole were windows into a damaged soul. He just can’t help himself. I wished that the Republicans had somebody, anybody else to stand up against the Democrats because Trump seemed to lack the temperament and, yes, the character, to be president.
I offer this confession both to clear my conscience and to offer this message to other Trump supporters who might have a whiff of TDS: Stop! Our embrace of false narratives about Trump’s character gives them credence. It is a major reason why he didn’t defeat the ineffable unqualified Kamala Harris by an even larger margin and why his job approval ratings aren’t higher. They serve as springboard for more extreme attacks against him. Look, even his supporters think he’s off.
Instead of trying to brush off the character argument, we should transform it. Donald Trump possesses a quality that has been in short supply in American politics and culture: courage.
This great strength is one source of the enmity against him.
Recall that Trump was an accepted member of elite circles for much of his life – Bill and Hillary Clinton attended his wedding to Melania in 2005. Then, suddenly, he became a pariah in 2015 when he threw his hat into the ring and dared to challenge the assumptions of the ruling class. Trump called out business leaders and politicians from both parties for policies and practices that seemed to line their pockets at the expense of average Americans: dubious trade deals with the repressive Chinese government; a lax approach to immigration that undercut working class jobs and wages; security arrangements that allowed NATO allies to free-ride on American taxpayers for their military defense.
These were the real sins his enemies could not and will not forgive. In the face of relentless and unfair attacks, most people would have buckled. It would have been so much easier to play ball. Trump, instead, stuck by his guns. The courage he displayed after an assassin came within in a whisker of taking his life last summer was a true reflection of his abiding character.
As we turn a new page in our nation’s history, I am filled with hope because I see that we once again have a president with the character to provide the leadership we need.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/putting-end-trump-derangement-syndrome
Floyd – this is an accurate account. His actions upon taking office show that he is not a “regular” politician with flowery language but overly hesitant at taking any kind of bold steps in America’s favor. Instead, he sat in the Oval Office and had a relaxed impromptu conversation with members of the press for a couple hours on end while signing numerous executive orders – all aimed at making America great again and restoring sanity and common sense to government policy in all areas (domestic, foreign, economic, energy, immigration, etc.).
Gotta hand it to Trump. Who else could cheat on his wife and little boy with a porn actress who specializes in anal gangbang jizz fests and still have millions of born again Christians hold him up with the highest honors? Who could unequivocally state that taking the 5th is a 100% sign of guilt, rape a woman, avoid defending himself on the stand, then claim it’s a witch hunt, and millions of people believe him? Who could steal military secrets and praise evil dictators and still have some in the military worship him? Who could call for comprehensive tariffs, not seen by a large country since Mao and Stalin, and conservatives fall in line to clap for the demise of the economy?
It’s Trump’s time. Unfortunately.
Kinda makes you realize just how bad the country thought Biden/Kamala were
So, you’re saying you’re pro rape.
It’s Trump’s time. Unfortunately.
Unfortunately for America’s enemies. Fortunately for all Americans who actually want America to succeed.
The above is what the left has been reduced to. Sad in a way, but also happy that Trump’s – and America’s – success is making them craaaaazy.
OldManFromKS,
Well said and spot on!
Well said, oldmanfromkansas.
The time is done when Republicans feared getting assaulted if they wore a red MAGA hat. The nation is galvanized.
For years, Democrats called Republicans liars when we argued that Democrats were open borders, pro criminals, and anti law abiding citizens. We all saw what the Democrat hegemony accomplished, to catastrophic effect.
The tide might have turned even in deep blue California, where Democrats now realize where their supermajority got them. Millions of gallons of water released to the delta smelt, which has only lessened in numbers, a reservoir off line, wooden power poles not replaced with metal ones to avoid disturbing a native milk vetch that’s available for purchase online, reclamation rules in Malibu where if Mother Nature Destroys your house you may not rebuild, onerous permit process that takes years, the banning of fire breaks in the hills allowing wildfires to spread, and the head of the LAFD equity division saying on camera that if she had to carry someone’s husband out of a burning building, then he put himself in a bad situation.
Karen – my heart goes out to you and others in Cali, and especially to those who didn’t vote for this nonsense but have to live with it. As I mentioned the other day, California has the nation’s best land and weather, but the worst government. I refer to it as the strange suicide of California (h/t Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe).
OldManFromKS,
Well said. I feel for all those, even the rich, who lost their homes. The upside, they are looking around, seeing the failures of the Democrat leadership and just might change their voting habits. Too bad this is what it took.
Wow! Karen S. got to use her big word again–“hegemony”. Can “Machiavellian” be far behind? The nation is NOT “galvanized”–From “Newsweek”:
“Trump’s promise to conduct mass deportations of people in the U.S. illegally reveals deep divisions. The poll found that while 8 in 10 Americans favor deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes—even if they are here legally—support drops significantly for mass deportations of those without criminal records. Only about 4 in 10 Americans favor such actions, and a slight majority oppose them outright.
Tariffs on foreign goods, proposed by Trump as a solution to issues such as illegal immigration and high food prices, are also unpopular. Nearly half respondents oppose imposing tariffs on all imported goods, with only 3 in 10 expressing support. Even among Republicans, just over half back the idea, with a significant minority opposed or neutral.
On the issue of pardoning participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, public sentiment is overwhelmingly against doing so. Only 2 in 10 Americans support pardoning the rioters, while 6 in 10 oppose it, including half who are strongly opposed. Even within the Republican Party, opinions are split, with about 4 in 10 supporting the move and 3 in 10 opposed. ….
On other key issues, Trump’s pledge to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement is opposed by about half Americans, with only 20 percent supporting the move. One surprise is that Democrats are only slightly more likely than Republicans to oppose getting rid of the debt ceiling.
Meanwhile, his plan to increase oil drilling on federal lands is favored by just a third of respondents, with about 4 in 10 opposing it. Similarly, proposals to eliminate federal protections for transgender students are met with more opposition than support.
Only 2 in 10 Americans support pardoning most Capitol riot participants….”.
MAGA media tells you lies like this to make you feel good– like you are in the majority–which you are not. The nation is NOT “galvanized”.
Sounds like your thumbs up on anal gangbang jizz fests.
Just another lying, Kool-aid drinker.
Anonymous, the lives of many of the protesters were destroyed. Bank accounts closed out, mortgages foreclosed, autos repossessed, lost jobs, insurance premiums not paid and as a result children of the accused not being fed or receiving proper healthcare. In the movie No Country for Old Men a person who had no idea of morality was depicted and the tale of his murderous rampage was met by a shrug of the shoulders of the aged sheriff because after his many years in his profession he was not surprised that such a person could exist. I reiterate this story because it presents a parallel example of your and Gigi’s thought process. Just like the character in the movie there is no understanding, compassion for those whose lives have been destroyed, or any presence of remorse on your part for what you and your leftist compatriots have foisted upon your fellow Americans. I understand that it’s a useless question but nevertheless I must still ask. Have you no shame madam?
Anonymous, we know that there have been many people on both the right and the left who have done bad things in their lives. The difference is that the Christians who have committed such acts admit the evil of their acts and have shown remorse and have changed their way of living. Are you telling us that in all ways that you have lead a saintly life? If so we do not believe you. Let he who is among you who is without sin cast the first stone. May this concept change your life.
Gotta hand it to Trump. Who else could cheat on his wife and little boy with a porn actress who specializes in anal gangbang jizz fests
Gotta hand it to President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Incest Showers! Who else could repeatedly rape their teenage daughter, screw the babysitter before the bodies of their wife and child were cold, rape their aids, fund their bagman drug addict pedophile kid with money to buy underage whores and crack to create a porn channel and get elected by Anonymous Democrat groomers and fellow pedophiles!
Might need a better version of Anonymous Democrat Pedophile to post here that the first lady’s nude modeling for avant-garde fashion magazines was equal to a Joe Biden/Hunter Biden anal gangbang jizz fest.
Better moral equivalency needed if they hope to pull that off… Anonymously of course.
Old Airborne Dog
ATS – you do not understand that people are not listening anymore.
You can make all the absurd claims you wish to make. No one believes you.
Turley is correctly noting that the conduct of DOJ is what justifies these pardon’s.
It is your conduct and that of the left that has resulted in Trump’s re-election.
But it is worse for you than that.
This is not 2016 – left wing nut allegations such as that Trump colluded with Russia will just result in laughter today.
Trump enters the presidency with the greatest unchecked power that any modern president has had.
Why ?
Because no one beleive you anymore.
Who will pay attention to left wing whistle blowers ?
Will anyone aside from you listen to future Vindemen’s are Ciaremella’s ?
The only Danger Trump faces is failure.
And the odds of that are low.
Biden has left Trump in an excellent position.
He has failed in pretty much everything he has touched.
But most of those failures are fixable.
John Say,
Another great comment. The sad part is they are not bright enough to understand just how irrelevant they really are. They are that old man, yelling at a cloud.
Professor Turley writes, “According to polling, the public ultimately found the ‘barbarians’ less threatening than those who have insisted that Rome would fall.”
Ladies and gentlemen, Caligula has left the building.
First hand account of journalist J6er. Note the youtube helpful note “Wikipedia • On January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was attacked by a mob of supporters of then-president Donald Trump in an attempted self-coup d’état, two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.”