A political science professor, an amateur, and a former president of Mexico explain the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The concept of the 14th amendment is absurd, was never ratified. That I say being an alcoholic...cannot control myself...as a result...would give up my sovereignty to someone...who could in the name of saving me do whatever he/she wishes...including punishing me...tell me how to live my life, how to think in the name of saving me...to which I would have no recourse...if I resist or defy in any way would be considered a criminal...is the essence of the interpretation of the 14th amendment today. This interpretation has been incrementally brought about by the federal government to usurp its authority...resulting in the tyranny of today.
This interpretation conflicts with the 9-11th amendments, duplicates and make void the 5th amendment and more. The US Code, and US Constitution define three jurisdictions of the Federal Government.
1) District of Columbia and federal territories
2) Several States (50 today, which are sovereign), DC and federal territories, authority limited to Article 1 section 8
3) Name among world of nations
Suggest reading RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES 83 U.S. 36 (1872).
There are many things contained in the 14th Amendment, and some that, as you allude to, may need to be considered for change. My concern with the article, however, involved just the first sentence of Section 1 as that was recently in the news from what our president-elect wants to accomplish. He hinted at issuing executive orders that, with the prevailing (mis)interpretation of that first sentence, would cause quite a stir that he is going against the Constitution. In actuality, he would be DEFENDING that provision of the Constitution, but it does not appear that anyone in his transition team (nor himself) seem to know that fact, but they appeared willing to go against the Constitution (as they understood it), and that is a dangerous path to go down.
The original intent affirms the language of that first sentence. If the language had been more elusive, then it could be argued the original intent failed to be made clear in the approved language, and the approved language would (or should) prevail. When one studies the notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there are cases where their original language and intent were swallowed up after the Committee of Style finished their work.
I came across your article from a link on lewrockwell.com. If you are familiar with the slaughter house cases, and similar libertarian authors as Murray Rothbard, there is a true untold (by todays educational and media establishments) history concerning the fourteenth amendment. When one reads the US Supreme Court slaughter house case decision, one will see expressed contentions and disputations concerning the meaning of the usage of the term "United States" in article I. The Court determined in its decision that the definition of United States was the District of Columbia and Federal Territories...and that the amendment corrected the citizenship quagmire brought about by the Dred Scott decision.
All of this is irrelevant today, because no branch of the government, legislative, executive or judicial of the federal, state or local governments follow any Constitutional or just governments provisions. Everyone of them is corrupt, despotic, and tyrannical. It will only get worse. The reason for this is that the people whom they represent are exactly like them, wicked, liars, corrupt, etc. I have enclosed at the end an excerpt from the slaughter house decision.
Thank you,
Roger Maniccia
The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship-not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether [83 U.S. 36, 73] this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.
To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
'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.'
The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [83 U.S. 36, 74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.
The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.
Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment. [83 U.S. 36, 75] If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.
The first occurrence of the words 'privileges and immunities' in our constitutional history, is to be found in the fourth of the articles of the old Confederation...
Can anyone tell us who granted any hospital, doctor, or state agency to begin by giving citizenship to those born of illegals, foreign tourists, foreign representatives, etc.? Can we point to the first case of this?
Hi, David, thanks for your question. I added a link at the top of the article that points to another recent article on another Substack that would likely answer your question. The link is contained in the section that starts, "NOTE to readers..."
The concept of the 14th amendment is absurd, was never ratified. That I say being an alcoholic...cannot control myself...as a result...would give up my sovereignty to someone...who could in the name of saving me do whatever he/she wishes...including punishing me...tell me how to live my life, how to think in the name of saving me...to which I would have no recourse...if I resist or defy in any way would be considered a criminal...is the essence of the interpretation of the 14th amendment today. This interpretation has been incrementally brought about by the federal government to usurp its authority...resulting in the tyranny of today.
This interpretation conflicts with the 9-11th amendments, duplicates and make void the 5th amendment and more. The US Code, and US Constitution define three jurisdictions of the Federal Government.
1) District of Columbia and federal territories
2) Several States (50 today, which are sovereign), DC and federal territories, authority limited to Article 1 section 8
3) Name among world of nations
Suggest reading RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES 83 U.S. 36 (1872).
Much more to be said.
There are many things contained in the 14th Amendment, and some that, as you allude to, may need to be considered for change. My concern with the article, however, involved just the first sentence of Section 1 as that was recently in the news from what our president-elect wants to accomplish. He hinted at issuing executive orders that, with the prevailing (mis)interpretation of that first sentence, would cause quite a stir that he is going against the Constitution. In actuality, he would be DEFENDING that provision of the Constitution, but it does not appear that anyone in his transition team (nor himself) seem to know that fact, but they appeared willing to go against the Constitution (as they understood it), and that is a dangerous path to go down.
The original intent affirms the language of that first sentence. If the language had been more elusive, then it could be argued the original intent failed to be made clear in the approved language, and the approved language would (or should) prevail. When one studies the notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there are cases where their original language and intent were swallowed up after the Committee of Style finished their work.
Thank you for your comments.
I read your response. Additional comments:
I came across your article from a link on lewrockwell.com. If you are familiar with the slaughter house cases, and similar libertarian authors as Murray Rothbard, there is a true untold (by todays educational and media establishments) history concerning the fourteenth amendment. When one reads the US Supreme Court slaughter house case decision, one will see expressed contentions and disputations concerning the meaning of the usage of the term "United States" in article I. The Court determined in its decision that the definition of United States was the District of Columbia and Federal Territories...and that the amendment corrected the citizenship quagmire brought about by the Dred Scott decision.
All of this is irrelevant today, because no branch of the government, legislative, executive or judicial of the federal, state or local governments follow any Constitutional or just governments provisions. Everyone of them is corrupt, despotic, and tyrannical. It will only get worse. The reason for this is that the people whom they represent are exactly like them, wicked, liars, corrupt, etc. I have enclosed at the end an excerpt from the slaughter house decision.
Thank you,
Roger Maniccia
The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship-not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether [83 U.S. 36, 73] this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.
To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
'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.'
The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [83 U.S. 36, 74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.
The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.
Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment. [83 U.S. 36, 75] If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.
The first occurrence of the words 'privileges and immunities' in our constitutional history, is to be found in the fourth of the articles of the old Confederation...
Can anyone tell us who granted any hospital, doctor, or state agency to begin by giving citizenship to those born of illegals, foreign tourists, foreign representatives, etc.? Can we point to the first case of this?
Hi, David, thanks for your question. I added a link at the top of the article that points to another recent article on another Substack that would likely answer your question. The link is contained in the section that starts, "NOTE to readers..."
Hope that helps.