Well regulated means proficient.

It can just as easily be read as "a proficient militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right is STILL spelled out after comma.

United States AND Ohio would be me for example, the state in which I reside. Its not a condition. The other and isn't either, it is used in the common way. There is no saying the sentence the common way without the word AND.

All people in this category are this thing. It is literally affirming the antecedent.

This is a real stretch.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 1 2019 05:56am

The other and is what we're talking about.

It is redundant to say born in our jurisdiction AND subject to our jurisdiction if they mean the same thing like you assert.

It would be weird if its said that but it does not say that.

It plainly says all people born here and subject to the jurisdiction are citizens of the country and the state they reside. This is the original document that defines things and lays things out. It can't reference anything else or by implication so it says born here and subject to our jurisdiction. There are other paths to citizenship But filling these 2 criteria are the way you and I became citizens. And Mexican babies.

You remind me of Bill Clinton right now arguing what is the meaning of is.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 1 2019 06:15am

Ya wanna know what's really weird? This issue has somewhat to do with abortion laws as well. In this I mean the word "born" in the 14th amendment.

When exactly was that person (the baby) considered... born. AND since the illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction of", where, when, how to we propose to separate the baby from the parent? Is the baby not "subject to the jurisdiction of" because at the time of it's birth (whenever we consider that to be), it belonged to the parent and not to the US.

In order to uphold birthright citizenship, do we need to separate the child from the parent, at birth? If we don't, then that child could be considered to be, not "subject to the jurisdiction of", the US, but rather subject to the jurisdiction of it's parent, who is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and should be considered as an invading force would be considered.




/e This is an amendment which has some curious conditions surrounding it then and now. When the 14th amendment was written, there were no such thing as illegal aliens. By that fact alone it would seem that the 14th amendment says absolutely nothing about the children of illegal aliens, because there were none, when the amendment was ratified.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 1 2019 06:42am

Some people who are born here... get this... AREN'T subjects of our jurisdiction, but are instead subjects of foreign jurisdictions. That's exactly why they wrote it that way. Birthright citizenship was never the intention. Indians for example, were subjects of foreign jurisdictions.

Agreed. The 14th amendment was originally ratified to prevent other countries from setting up their own country inside the US, and then having children who would be protected by all the rights we afford our citizens, but still being members of that different country.
When the 14th was ratified, we DID have open borders. All that was really required to immigrate was a swearing in, so to speak. A promise that the immigrant would be an American and defend America as well.

The US was desperate for people in those days. As it was, at that time, we didn't have enough "citizens" to even defend this country. So we made it exceptionally easy to immigrate.
Then some thought, we better make an amendment so these immigrants can't just enter the US and set up their own country on our soil. In other words, be NOT "subject to the jurisdiction of" our laws. Hence the 14th amendment was born.

This is also why I mentioned abortion laws. When do we consider a baby.... born? When it pops out, or when we can take it out and keep it alive till it can survive on it's own, etc., etc., etc. If we decide that abortion is legal up to say... 8 weeks... what legal rights does that fetus possess before the 8 weeks and after the 8 weeks.

If it's mother is an illegal alien, is the fetus... an illegal alien before 8 weeks, and a legal alien after 8 weeks... etc. When exactly does the "subject to the jurisdiction of" take hold... legally?

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 1 2019 07:05am

The idea behind the 14th amendment was to assure citizenship for former slaves (who were undoubtedly subjects of American jurisdiction) while not granting it to just anyone born here (Indians, who were not).

Yeah, I know. Indians have sovereignty, aka they are their own country inside the US. We can't really claim that Indians are illegal aliens.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that we either need to rewrite the 14th amendment to include the issue of illegal aliens, or legally admit that since there were NO illegal aliens when the 14th was ratified, that the 14th says absolutely nothing about birthright citizenship, when speaking of illegal aliens.




/e In other words... the 14th Amendment as written and considering WHEN it was ratified, has absolutely nothing to do with children born in the US to illegal alien parents.
We can't legally say that it grants birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 1 2019 07:23am

LOL This literally made me laugh out loud, thank you.