Below is my column in the New York Post on the latest attack on Elon Musk from the left. There is a mania on the left in calling people with opposing views “Nazis” and referencing the Third Reich. The left has jumped the Nazi shark in this rhetoric as the public tunes out these increasingly hysterical voices.
Here is the column:
One of the least successful efforts of the left and many in the media this election was to paint Republican voters as “Nazis” hellbent on destroying democracy.
While once verboten as a political comparison, liberal politicians and pundits have developed something of a Nazi fetish, where every statement and gesture is declared a return of the Third Reich. It seems like each news event presents a Rorschach test where every inkblot looks like a Nazi.
That mania reached absurd, even comedic, levels with the attack on Elon Musk over an awkward gesture during the inauguration celebration.
An exuberant Musk told the crowd, “My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.” As he gave those words, he placed his right hand on his chest and stretched his arm outward, his palm facing the floor. He then repeated the gesture before putting his hand on his chest again.
It was all done in a matter of seconds, but it was enough for the usual mob to erupt in faux outrage.
Pundits insisted that Musk had chosen the moment to come out as a Nazi on national television. The Washington Post breathlessly reported this week how the “Nazi-style salute” had “invigorated fans on the far right.” The usual liberal professors were rolled out to offer a patina of authority to the ridiculous claim.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University, declared, “Historian of fascism here. It was a Nazi salute and a very belligerent one too.”
Mike Stuchbery went on X (the company owned by the man he now suggests is a Nazi reenactor) to declare, “I studied the Nazis at university, taught the history of Nazi Germany on two continents and wrote for major newspapers about Nazi Germany. I am internet famous for fact-checking chuds [gross people] on the history, ideology and policy of Nazi Germany. That was a Nazi salute.”
Well, that settles it.
As the outrage continued, any doubt or dissent was denounced as evidence that you are obviously a Nazi as well.
That became a bit embarrassing when the leading Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League, stated the obvious: This was not a Nazi salute but rather an “awkward gesture.”
The core principle of liberal mob tactics is that there can be no divergence, even by a group like the ADL. The way to deal with opposing ideas or writings is by making someone persona non grata. If you do not cancel others, you will be canceled.
So the ADL was effectively declared soft on Nazis by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): “Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity. People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them. Thank you for making that crystal clear to all.”
We’ve reached a level of absurdity where Jewish advocates are treated like they are virtual Nazi sympathizers.
This is not the first time the Democrats have labeled Trump and his supporters “Nazis.”
It started years ago as Democrats repeated analogies of Trump to Hitler and his followers to brownshirted neo-Nazis. Defeating Trump has been compared to stopping Hitler in 1933, and media personalities like Rachel Maddow went on the air with a hysterical claim that “death squads” were authorized by the Supreme Court.
When Trump held a massive rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden before the election, the media were apoplectic and immediately declared it … you guessed it … akin to a Nazi rally. From the Washington Post to the New York Times, the media formed an affinity group meeting to fret over “echoes of 1939.” In case anyone missed the message, Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz emphasized “a direct parallel” with the Nazis.
Over at the Nation, David Zirin treated Madison Square Garden (known for everything from cage fights to dog shows) as an almost Vatican-like space: “With his fascist New York City rally, Donald Trump has befouled what many believe to be a sacred space: Madison Square Garden.”
So Trump is a Nazi. Musk is a Nazi. Half the country are Nazis.
The problem is that, if you say everyone is a Nazi, then no one is a Nazi. It loses its meaning.
That includes Ocasio-Cortez, who appears to have joined the ranks of the Reich after critics posted her making a Musk-like gesture during a speech.
There was no torrent of media fretting about how the gesture reflected the extremism of AOC’s questioning need for a Supreme Court, seeking to bar Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots, or supporting censorship. AOC is a certified Nazi hunter, a license that seems only to be available to figures on the left.
Of course, labeling political opponents as diabolically evil fanatics and seeking to bar candidates from ballots sounds a lot like … well … it sounds familiar.
There is an alternative. We can put the rage rhetoric aside and have honest debates over differences on politics and laws. In other words, we can fight over policy … and leave the Nazis out of it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I am Norwegian and we sadly have a mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, who is proud to be a Nazi. His Nazi salute in court have only a minimal likeness to Musk’s gestures. ABB was not turning his whole torso and did not make a “throw” movement, and he held his arm up for several seconds. Google his name and Nazi salute.
I do not know how “experts” can claim it is 100% certain that Musk made a Nazi salute. Either they are no expert, or they lie because they want to see it as a Nazi salute.
Old B/W movies from The Third Reich cement the fact that a Nazi salute is done with rigid torso, no throwing movement and the arm held up for a period of time. I am certain of that a leader for a Brownshirt cadre would have chastised a member who did that strange movement instead of a correct formal salute.
That’s not even the worst of it. I just watched Trump and Vance standing there on the same stage with their fists raised pumping them forward over and over again, screaming out visually they are black supremacists and down for the cause.
Elon was just sending Hearts…
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-c30
“Trump is a fascist”
Fascist governments control every aspect of an individual’s life — from speech to industry, from cradle to grave. Their basic premise is that the individual’s life belongs to the government.
Trump radically reduces government control of business, slashes taxes, openly endorses free speech (while taking action to lop off the tentacles of state censorship). His premise is: Your life is your own. Go be productive and happy.
So either Trump is a very incompetent fascist (which if he is a fascist, I suppose is a good thing). Or (far more likely) the word “fascist” does not mean what the Left thinks it means.
@Sam
Oh, the irony from the left is something to behold, to be sure. They have learned exactly nothing, and their strategy seems to be, ‘We just didn’t lie HARD enough.’. Again, they should be grateful we do not have their severed heads in baskets – Robespierre 2.0. To claim that we are ‘now’ somehow in an era of oligarchs is just hysterical when they are without a doubt the generational aristocracy. It isn’t working anymore. No one is listening to their boosheet. America will once again lead the way. They can go blow, we think they are the clowns they absolutely are. Enjoy your hundred dollar ice cream and hair treatments, Nancy. doesn’t stop any of us from seeing you are a harpy and a ghoul.
And OT: I predict that Western Europe will collapse over the next four years, with Britain first under modern Labour, maybe Germany. I guess we’ll see. We have already seen, however, over the past four years, what our country would be like if millennials were running it – Europe has not awakened as of yet. In fact, given the events of the week, the EU globalist pieces of cr*p are likely sh***ing their pants. Good! May they actually require adult diapers going forward.
James,
That is an interesting prediction. I could see it happening from either a social-economic collapse or from either a civil war. Many of the WEF, Davos types failed policies are coming to bite them in the butt. Of course they will jet off to some far away place to escape the collapse while those who remain behind are left with the mess. And those WEF, Davos elites will never acknowledge their own machinations in the collapse and forgive themselves of any guilt. What we need then is a company of Nazi like hunters to find them and bring them in for trial for their actions. Their crimes should end at the end of a rope.
Reductio ad Hitlerum? Too much oxygen, me thinks. Those who’ve followed this closely know that Biden himself has offered some of the very best renditions. While the left admonishes us as Hilterite or too Hilteresque they secretly admire him for performing the same, and what’s more? Is that Biden knows it! And so he takes center stage! But consider that the left, and even the party itself, have become largely irrelevant…. While some few who suffer wealth-affluence guilt, self-loathing inner angst, and a hatred of all things American, and so seek to neuter every aspect of “American” – our ideals, our culture, our institutions – every aspect, to include even life and reproduction/ replication itself – there are many many more, incredibly hungry and desirous, of the universal prosperity we offer, through rights, law, and civility, coupled with hard work, strength, and conviction, as “opportunity.” Success will be our vindicator.
* Most likely in our world prices will go up. It’s what we do. We just raise prices until there’s one carton of eggs no one can afford. 12 people then pool their pennies and buy the carton. Each person gets 1 egg donating half to charity.
The upside is no one ever needs to work. ☺
Stupid comment.
That’s all ASTERISK produces, stupid comments.
Interesting satiric comment, Anon…with a dystopian feel.
Here is related update to this column/post:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5103537-adl-which-had-defended-musk-takes-issue-with-his-nazi-puns/
The ADL needs to be conscious that they might come across as a public scold. How did that organization feel about Life is Beautiful, which has an 81% on Rotten Tomatoes?
. . . and was nominated for seven Oscars, including both Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film (a rare combination).
For fun:
* more like Bridge on the River Kwai …
M
remember when the Fascist National Socialist Party said the Communists were the problem?
JFK files released. Promises made, promises kept.
https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/us-news/trump-orders-release-of-final-files-on-jfk-rfk-mlk-assassinations/
What has become abundantly clear is that it doesn’t matter what the Constitution, it’s what those in power say it means. The founders were pretty smart but I doubt that they could ever have envisioned what their America would ever descend into. For the true inference of their intentions those arguing must regress to the conditions of their times.
Traveler,
I agree. The founders at the time did what they did out of the desire to establish the rights of a newly founded country that they helped form. I am sure just as they could not imagine the atomic bomb or energy, man on the moon, the internet or smartphone, they could not imagine career politicians. If they did, I think they would of put in term limits.
Trump makes it clear… in his mind, the ends justify the means. Who cares what the 14th Amendment says? Who cares what the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act says?
I don’t think the Founders considered such wanton disregard for the rules of our political system would be met with such apathy by the electorate.
Trump doesn’t think he can convince Congress to implement his policy desires, so he tries to usurp them with Executive Orders. It is not a sign of strength but one of supreme weakness in his ability to use the gears of government in the way the Founders intended.
This democratic backsliding is following the way of many other governments around the world. We will look more like Turkiye than the UK by the end of his reign (if it ever ends).
What a joke. Everything you describe is exactly what Biden did and Trump is trying to correct. Where have you been the last four years? Sheesh!
Not quite sure I understand. What 14th Amendment language was recklessly disregarded by Biden? What provision of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Act did he violate?
If your comment was meant to be more general — then Yes, I generally agree. Biden’s use of executive authority with respect to certain actions – like for student debt – was authoritarian and wrong.
But, the both sideism is a deflection. Ends should not justify the means, regardless of political party. Do you care about our political system?
I suspect it isn’t just the procedural aspect of this that is bothering you. I also don’t believe that an EO can fix this. However, congress should be able to modify birthright citizenship to exclude “tourist babies” without an amendment. No one believes that its a good idea for wealthy Chinese mothers to fly into the US, and go straight to a birthing suite in a NYC hotel room to have their new American baby or for a poor Guatemalan mother to swim across the Rio Grande to give birth in Texas. This is bad public policy, its dangerous, immoral (if that matters anymore), a perversion of our legal system, and a ridiculous abuse of our country’s generosity.
* do you have to read, speak and write in English to be a naturalized citizen, anonymous? ^^^
SOUNDS LIKE BIDEN TO A TEE!!!
If an amendment of the Constitution did not consider the effects of modern day issues that are deleterious to the Nation then they need revisit. It foreign invasion is monopolizing our Constitutional rights, then it should be revisited. As I stated, if there is harm being caused to our nation then fix it. I don’t think the founders considered mass migration, social security, unchecked taxation in their deriving efforts of the Constitution.
You just discovered the “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln. Secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional. Lincoln had no authority to deny secession, commence an unconstitutional and undeclared war, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, confiscate private property, commit criminal dereliction of duty by his failure to enforce legislated immigration law, nullify statutory and fundamental law, etc., and induce the improper ratification of amendments in an environment of brutal post-war military occupation, all of which caused the termination of American constitutional freedom after a mere 71 years and has caused the loss of that freedom to Americans since that time. All the American rights and freedoms originally bestowed by the Founders must be restored.
Every act of Lincoln subsequent to his denial of secession is invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional and must be revoked and rescinded, with emphasis on the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx’s ideation and thesis.
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it,” Ben Franklin.
You couldn’t.
Unfortunately, a ‘justice’ can come along 70 years after an amendment was ratified and say, “hey, that amendment doesn’t mean what the framers said it means. It means what I say it means.”
An illegal change to our Constitution, which is then ‘zealously’ argued as being precedent and the law of the land!
It’s disgusting.
I don’t know with whom I’m more disgusted — the people who should know better — or the stupid people who just blindly believe what the first group blathers.
Traveler,
I submit to you this quote from the great Benjamin Franklin:
“This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
Franklin was also quoted as telling someone that the kind of government being hammered out at the Constitutional Convention was “A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”
Franklin, and I suspect the rest of our founders & framers were keenly aware of the pitfalls of human nature, but sought to strike a delicate balance between the government, and the governed, erring more on the side of the governed.
Sadly, only a truly virtuous people could ever maintain that marvelous balance they hammered out, and we’re far less virtuous than they were. As a result, we’re getting the government we deserve, I suppose.
Where Were The Hot Lesbians When I Needed Them???
A Short Missive by Floyd
So there I was, about 7:30PM, trying to put a miscreant tom cat into a carrier to get spayed. The little booger has two nursing sets of kittens in the house already, and I got to get him fixed. Leaning forward, with a tom cat by the tail, I dropped him into the carrier and then promptly fell out of my wheelchair onto the kitchen floor. I saw dead relatives, and bright beckoning light, but it was just the motion-activated night light on the shelf.
I crawled, and I flipped and flopped all over, but I could not get to my knees. And the tom cat escaped too. So, I called a relative in the park on alexa, but he was not able to help. I had not eaten much for two days, or drank much, in anticipation of a journey I had to make today outside of the house.
Floyd,
Hey man, take care of yourself! Hydrate! Water with a lemon or tea. Hate to think you getting hurt.
Crap! The cats sent my comment while I was in the restroom! Anyway, let me start again:
So there I was, about 7:30PM, trying to put a miscreant tom cat into a carrier to get spayed. The little booger has two nursing sets of kittens in the house already, and I got to get him fixed. Leaning forward, with a tom cat by the tail, I dropped him into the carrier and then promptly fell out of my wheelchair onto the kitchen floor. I saw dead relatives, and bright beckoning light, but it was just the motion-activated night light on the shelf.
I crawled, and I flipped and flopped all over, but I could not get to my knees. And the tom cat escaped too. So, I called a relative in the park on alexa, but he was not able to help. I had not eaten much for two days, or drank much, in anticipation of a journey I had to make today outside of the house. So strength-wise, I was pretty weak.
So, I called 911. Now, where I live, there is not much DEI stuff. Therefore, I reasoned in my fevered mind, that no great care would be expended sending people to help me, who looked like me! Hooray! I was sure that I was going to get at least 2 or 3 hot lesbians, the kind that you read about in Anais Nin stores. Not the one whose bodies look like cereal boxes. No – Sultry Svetlana, and cutesy Trixie, and maybe a dark-haired English Chick who looked like Marilyn Cole! I remember her, standing in front of a bookcase. I really admired her bookends!
Nope. I got a black dude, and two white guys who looked me. Maybe I should move to California???
😂 😂 😂
Floyd
You lived every young man’s fantasy way past time, with two hot lesbians at your beckon call. In your dreams they are beautiful, sultry sex kittens…in reality you get Rosie and Ellen fighting over the last piece of chicken.
What happened next, Floyd? Finish the story.
The 911 guys came quickly, and had me back in my wheelchair in a trice. I made sure that I could stand up and use my walker, which I could. Outside of humiliation, I was fine. I was dizzy and freezing all of a sudden, so I was thinking it was maybe shock and syncopation, but since I had no injuries, it was probably something else. I did get under the blankets in my recliner and tried to warm up. Alexa was very helpful!
Today I had to leave the house on necessary business, and that went okay. One thing I did become more convinced of. There needs to be a good way for cripples and the housebound and bedridden to get their IDs updated. Luckily, my state makes that easy, but I did get my address changed on my ID down at the DMV so I could have it today, which allowed me to conduct today’s business pretty easily. But if we are going to insist on VoterID, which I think we should, there needs to be an in-home, or zoom meeting, way to update the IDs. Most sick and handicapped people already have IDs, but addresses can change pretty regularly.
I think you just file an address change online.
In this way, Floyd, you can share your ID with thousands, maybe 100s of thousands. Very generous…
I had to take a piece of mail with my “new” address, which I have been at for 6 years or so. Then, I wasn’t in top form, and forgot my dang social security number for a minute or two. And, I could not hold my head steady enough for them to get a good picture, and I got to sit in my walker for the photo part.
But, after I got home, I had a 7UP, a glass of sweet tea, and lemonade. Ate some fried chicken, so I am coming back around.
Oh, Floyd. I love your comments. Some make me laugh and others, well…they touch my heart.
Dizzy and freezing? Maybe you felt clammy, cold perspiration? Could have been shock. Please take care of yourself.
I had not eaten much for two days, or drank much, in anticipation of a journey I had to make today outside of the house.
I understand why you do this, but your body needs fuel and hydration so you can physically accomplish your errands. Please don’t take this as a scolding or that you don’t know how to take care of yourself. It is solely concern for your well-being.
I sometimes don’t follow my own advice. Yesterday, in fact, helping my mom. The details are unpleasant so I won’t share, lol.
I’m glad you had some fried chicken and sweet tea afterwards!! Sounds yummy!
Trump wasn’t elected to obey the law . . .
So says low-IQ troll below. Of course he wasn’t elected for that purpose. Everybody has an obligation to obey the law. It’s not like we have 340 million people who are not under the rule of law, and ever four years we elect one person, our designated law-follower, who is obligated to obey the law. Duh!
Do you think he is obeying the law?
On Day One, he violated our separation of powers doctrine with his Tik Tok EO. Congressional statute laid out a specific process that requires their consent to extend the time period before the ban became effective. And yet, by his king’s decree, he unilaterally extended it..
On Day One, his birthright citizenship ban clearly violated the Constitution. Today, a Reagan-appointed federal judge called it “blatantly unconstitutional” and stated: “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
On Day One, he violated international and federal law by denying refugees an opportunity to seek asylum with his immigration executive orders.
On Day One, he violated the laws of biology by issuing an executive order that defines male and female by the existence of large and small reproductive cells “at conception,” when anyone with a middle school level understanding of biology knows that these reproductive cells do not develop for weeks after conception.
I am sure there are many more, but these were the easy ones.
Sorry if I don’t trust your bald and unsubstantiated assertions that he “violated the law.” I’ve learned with people like you, who make such grandiose claims, that you’re generally full of BS. You don’t get the benefit of the doubt. You have to back up these assertions with a little proof. You supply none.
One thing I can address: the birthright citizenship issue. That has been discussed ad nauseum earlier today on this blog. I have read scholarly legal writings both for and against Trump’s interpretation. Perhaps Scotus will agree with you, or perhaps Scotus will agree with Trump. Time will tell. But the preliminary ruling of one single federal judge – and I don’t give a s–t who nominated him to the bench – is about as far from a final ruling on the merits by the highest court in the land as one can get. Under your analysis, the Mississippi legislators who enacted the statute at issue in Dobbs also “violated the law” but they were ultimately vindicated.
P.S. Your reference to the “laws of biology” is laughable. The science-deniers are the ones saying men who identify as women really are women and should be able to pound the crap out of actual women in competitive sports, and to invade their locker rooms as showers. Trump is trying to put an end to that insanity. The fact you support that insanity only suggests you, sir, are insane.
No no no. There is no reasonable argument on birthright citizenship. No theory of constitutional interpretation can even try to lead you to that answer. Jesus. As a lawyer myself, when a judge says he cannot believe a member of the bar even tried to make that argument, it is pretty bad. For the layman, the concept of “jurisdiction” sounds fancy, but it is pretty simple. Can an illegal alien or tourist get pulled over by a cop for speeding in Texas? YES, well, then he is subject to jurisdiction in Texas. The irony is that Trump and the GOP are hailing the Laken Riley Act – a federal law that targets illegal aliens!!! – at the same time as argument that they are not subject to federal law. RIDICULOUS.
On biology, please educate yourself rather than make some silly reference to “science-deniers” that you saw on a Fox News entertainment show.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279001/#:~:text=The%20chromosomal%20sex%20of%20the,tract%20and%20the%20external%20genitalia.
The EARLIEST that a fetus can be differentiated by sex is Week 6, not at conception. So, PLEASE tell me, how does this make sense:
“(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
MAKE THAT MAKE SENSE TO ME ON THE SCIENCE.
You’re talking about legal jurisdiction, every person in the US is under the legal jurisdiction of the US government.
The Framers of the 14th were clear that ‘subject to the jurisdiction, thereof’ means full and complete jurisdiction — legal and political jurisdiction.
When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator 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). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=txwes-lr
These are the words of the Framers. This is the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction, thereof’ that was ratified by the states.
When was this changed by amendment?
Yikes. Please read: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=aulr
It responds to your John Eastman(!!) quote and shows how sloppy his “analysis” was by surveying the actual meaning “full and complete jurisdiction” using Trumbull’s own words (along with other drafters of the amendment). This language refers to the legal immunities of native populations, not in any way to immigrant populations within the United States. Per Senator Trumbull (your quote person above), a person is subject to the jurisdiction if he or she can be summoned by and sued in an American court or if he or she can be prosecuted criminally for actions taking place on United States soil. “Wild” and reservation Indians had, in essence, a limited extraterritoriality while on their own territory, even though it was within the borders of the nation. They were, in Senator Trumbull’s analogy, like Mexicans living in Mexico.
TRUMBULL: “What do we mean by ―subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?‖ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe [sic] Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, [sic] or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense? Is it not understood that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty.”
The analogous question, therefore, ought to be the following: If an ―illegal alien, or the American-born child of such an alien, commits a civil wrong—involvement in an automobile accident, say—on United States soil, can he or she be sued? If such a person commits a crime on United States soil, can he or she be tried and punished? The answers to these questions are self-evident. The only aliens who are immune from this civil and criminal jurisdiction are those who come here under explicit grants of diplomatic immunity.
Mind you this is the same Eastman that was disbarred. Which makes sense considering a judge today found it hard to believe that these arguments were made by a member of the bar.
Also, if this legislative intent analysis doesn’t clearly put this to bed — one thing you learn very quickly in law school is that you only turn to legislative intent if the text is ambiguous. Here, it is not.
I quoted the Framers of the 14th Amendment from the Congressional debates.
Not a lawyer.
You should read what they said again.
When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator 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”…
If an ―illegal alien, or the American-born child of such an alien, commits a civil wrong—involvement in an automobile accident, say—on United States soil, can he or she be sued? If such a person commits a crime on United States soil, can he or she be tried and punished? The answers to these questions are self-evident. The only aliens who are immune from this civil and criminal jurisdiction are those who come here under explicit grants of diplomatic immunity.
This is legal jurisdiction, not political jurisdiction. The Framers said both — full and complete jurisdiction — legal and political.
Not owing allegiance to anyone else. The same jurisdiction in extent and quality as current citizens are under.
So…when was this changed by Amendment??
Political jurisdiction? Please show me where in the above quote “political jurisdiction” is referenced?
“Civil and Military” does not mean “political” – Your snippet above comes from Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin. The full context: “All the Indians upon reservations within the several States are most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both CIVIL AND MILITARY (emphasis added). . . . For instance, there are seven or eight thousand Navajoes [sic] at the moment under the control of General Carlton, in New Mexico, upon the Indian reservations, managed, controlled, fed at the expense of the United States, and fed by the War Department, managed by the War Department, and at a cost to this Government of almost a million and a half of dollars every year. . . . Are these six or seven thousand Navajoes [sic] to be made citizens of the United States?
Senator Doolittle had introduced language that specifically referred to the issue of Indian tribes. That was his focus and the intent behind the use of the term “civil and military.” Thus has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with civil and military forms of LEGAL jurisidiction. This quote is IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to Trumbull’s quote, which clarifies that the CONTEXT of his discussion is legal jurisdiction of the native population.
Have you read the full context of your “civil and military” jurisdiction quote? It is very clear that Eastman distorts the context entirely, which isn’t surprising.
Can you find anything in the legislative history that shows otherwise? Your own quotes clearly do not say what you think they do.
I can wait.
Why do you keep talking about Eastman??
I said my quotes are from the Congressional debates.
This was just one quote from the Framers.
I bolded civil and military to show that the Indians were under the jurisdiction of the US government, but not the full and complete jurisdiction the Framers were talking about.
What about this do you not understand??
Senator Trumbull — “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Senator Howard — “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”…
Not owing allegiance to anyone else. Full and complete jurisdiction — the same jurisdiction current citizens are under.
Are current citizens under legal and political jurisdiction of the US government?
1866 Senator Howard
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Senator Edward Cowan
[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”
Senator Cowan is saying a foreigner is under legal jurisdiction, but still not a citizen.
In 1866, during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, stated: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
In 1862 During the 37th Congressional Debate on the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Additionally in 1872, Bingham again defined ‘natural-born citizen’ during a House Floor hearing regarding the status of U.S. citizenship of Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain. Here he clearly states 2 requirements for being natural born…born to parents (mother and father) and within the jurisdiction of the United States:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: “Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States…If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
I hope you are noticing the theme — born in the Country to parents who are not subject to a foreign power. I hope you also noticed how in some citations the term Natural Born Citizen is used. It is defined as born in the US to citizen parents.
I can post more.
I can post court cases.
Your “argument” is pulled from Eastman’s book.
The book leaves our quotes that are unfavorable to his position, such as Trumbull saying this:
“What do we mean by ―subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?‖ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe [sic] Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make
treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, [sic] or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense? Is it not understood that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty?”
Now let me ask you, based on the above, what do you think “allegiance” means? Back then it didn’t mean the same thing. It meant legal jurisdiction.
You also left out the discussion immediately following your quote of Howard above regarding classes of persons subject to the exception clause. He thought it captured only diplomats (ie “foreigners” which he described as aliens from families of ambassadors). This prompted a proposed amendment to the language to clarify that Indians not subject to taxation should be included as well. However, they ultimately decided that the language captures them too.
No other classes of persons were discussed. this your conclusion that the exception includes all foreign born people is wholly removed from the language of the legislative history. Can you find a single example of discussion where they consider anyone else as included?
I already told you several times. The quotes are from the debates. I haven’t read Eastman’s book.
The position I am arguing is the position of the Framers of the Amendment. That in order to be a citizen one must be born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the position of every quote I have posted. It doesn’t matter on which side of the Amendment — this is for your other comment — the position of the Framers is that subject to the jurisdiction means full and complete jurisdiction. Legal and political. I hope you looked up citizenship so you learned what it means — political Rights. Full and complete jurisdiction means the person can participate in every part of our society — legal and political.
I posted the quotes.
Every one says the same thing…in order to be a citizen one must be born in the Country to parents who have no other allegiance. Who aren’t already citizens of another country.
Jurisdiction means full and complete jurisdiction — legal and political — because those are the Rights of a citizen — political Rights. Could they vote, be drafted, serve on juries, hold office? No. Those belong to citizens — not visitors, not legal residents, not illegals. Only citizens.
The jurisdiction current citizens are under.
Marshall was before the 14th. Did they have political Rights?? NO. Legal and political jurisdiction is full and complete jurisdiction — owing no allegiance to another. Not being subject to the jurisdiction of another country.
This is what being a citizen means.
This is what the Framers wrote, this is what the states ratified. This has never been changed by Amendment.
This is my only reply to you.
Also, just so we are clear, which side of adoption of the amendment do you think was Senator Cowan on, pro or anti?
Probably shouldn’t quote someone who was against the adoption of the amendment as evidence of what it means…that’s like using Jefferson Davis to understand the Emancipation Proclamation.
Igbmiel,
There is simply no doubt that temporary visitors, and by extension their children, were in the nineteenth century meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall directly addressed the situation of temporary visitors in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812). He began by saying that “[t]he jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. . . . ” Although there were some exceptions (for foreign sovereigns and diplomats), Marshall explained that territorial jurisdiction did apply to temporary visitors:
“When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries, are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and not one motive for requiring it.”
Your understanding of “allegiance” is so misguided. Per JOHN FRIGGIN MARSHALL, temporary foreign visitors to the US owed an allegiance to the United States.
You have tiny seizures
* you did your homework…
You said, “For the layman, the concept of “jurisdiction” sounds fancy, but it is pretty simple. Can an illegal alien or tourist get pulled over by a cop for speeding in Texas? YES, well, then he is subject to jurisdiction in Texas.”
Yeah, but – what if it is the French ambassador who is speeding? He is clearly subject to the traffic laws here, but he is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA or Texas. His child is not a natural born citizen by the holding in WKA. BUT – think about it – the child of the ambassador is not an ambassador. He’s a baby – yet because his parents are here under allegiance to a foreign power, he is not born a citizen.
Clearly, something more is contemplated by the term “subject to the jurisdiction.”
The Framers meant legal and political jurisdiction — subject to our laws and participating in our political processes — voting, being drafted, serving on juries, holding office.
no they really did not. Can you point to any discussion specifically of “political jurisdiction”? Give me one example from the legislative history where “political jurisdiction” is discussed! JUST ONE!
Have you looked up the definition of citizenship?
Do that then get back to me.
Diplomats (nor their children) can be sued in civil court, state or federal, for individual torts, nor except in extraordinary cases can they be arrested or tried for alleged crimes in American courts. They have diplomatic immunity.
Diplomats are NOT subject to traffic laws here, except in rare circumstances. Typically this immunity is waived for something minor like a moving violation.
cannot be sued*
sorry
And on Tik Tok, the law does not grant Trump authority to extend the deadline unless ByteDance has binding agreements in place to sell TikTok. An extension requires congressional action.
At a minimum, it is a clear violation of the Take Care Clause. This is not simply an exercise in discretion. The President is authorizing a violation of a statute that was just upheld by the Supreme Court.
Best actress is going to a man this year at the academy…true
Yep, I’m thinking about being naturalized just in case. You should consider it, too.
I believe Elon Musk was just returning from a visit to Auschwitz immediately prior to this salute incident. In the photo with a very brief news article reporting the visit his companion is Ben Shapiro. This obnoxious stunt by the Media Minions seems to have been designed to eclipse the visit & companion. Also, it has long been my impression that Musk is somewhere on the autism spectrum, so I thought this stunt was especially cruel to do to him.
Anonymous 4:20 Pm. The original law terminating TicToc had a 90 day period of delay built in if the President so wished. A district court judge is rarely the final word on constitutionality. Actually the XX and XY chromosomes are there at the first divisions of the cell. Obviously you did not make it to middle school level biology. Try again
Can you cite the 90 day period of delay language that was exercisable by President Trump via Executive Order? There was none because the period EXPIRED prior to Trump taking office.
And on the biology, come on! You must not have read the Executive Order or my quote from above. Per Trump’s EO, chromosomes are not the basis for determining whether a “person” is male or female. So that is irrelevant. “Female” means “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.” Same with “male” and the “small reproductive cell.” Those are completely different bases.
The SRY gene can malfunction, leading to individuals who are genetically male but physiologically female. Sometimes a person with XY chromosomes doesn’t develop androgen receptors, meaning their body doesn’t recognize the testosterone it produces, a condition known as androgen insensitivity syndrome.
An estimated 2% of the population has one of these intersex traits. So, this is not a fringe situation.
You did learn about the difference between sex chromosomes and reproductive cells in biology class, right? I know we did.
Actually, a district judge is OVERWHELMINGLY the final word on constitutionality. By any metric, only a rare few cases make it beyond this initial level of our court system.
SO, basically everything you said above was wrong.
really…did the Biden Family obey the law? Russia Hoax Creators Obey the Law?
The people who fined Trump $500 Million for paying back a loan Obey the Law?
Yes.
No. He was selectively prosecuted by a DA that campaigned on doing this. Then received a penalty so severe that it violates his civil rights.