Yes, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, it is just “revisionism” to claim that the understanding of the 14th Amendment’s use of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant something other than; as you put it, “the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.”
So I guess Thomas J Cooley, namesake of Michigan’s School of Law, when writing his textbook “Principles of Constitutional Law” in 1880 and as revised in this 1891 edition, was engaged in revisionist history?
He was announcing a made up, revisionist understanding of the 14th Amendment, and not capturing the public or even legal understanding of that phrase?
M’kay.
@RyanHatesLitter@elsathora Tell that to all the native Americans born here prior to the 1920s. They weren’t granted citizenship because of magic dirt. They were under a different jurisdiction. Stop it with your low iq nonsense.
@RyanHatesLitter@elsathora You fool. Elsa has a better understanding of British common law that was the foundation for the 14th A than you. Under the jurisdiction doesn’t mean just born on magical dirt. A parent must be a citizen.
@SairTeair@6mg_coolmint@MattClarkReport@Breaking911 And means it has to qualify both premises. If being born here was sufficient to be under the jurisdiction of the nation, that second clause would be unnecessary and redundant. But it’s not. It means something other than being born here
@DarthBen5@Timcast If the Constitution allows birthright citizenship then citizenship is meaningless and this experiment is over in a fantastic failure.
@DerickMcAfee@RickyTheGuido And the Jews desire to continue to live under the law and are thus spiritual heirs of Hagar. They are not Israel and unfortunately as you note, are not saved.
Israel is the children of the promise, people who faithfully follow Christ, aka the Church.