>and subject to the jurisdiction thereofWhat does this text mean in the 14th amendment?In 1868 Jurisdiction meant more than simply being withing the "geographical limits" of the united states and subject to its laws as that would have applied to Native Americans who were explicitly excluded from Birthright Citizenship in the 14th amendment.So what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?Jurisdiction meant Allegiance which was separated into two groups in the 1860s and still is today, its an ancient concept that goes back all the way to the Greeks and the Code of Justinian and eventually Common Law>Natural Allegiance: An intrinsic obligation of loyalty to the sovereign from birth.>Local Allegiance: Owed in return for the protection provided by the sovereign during a sojourners stay.Jurisdiction means allegiance, and allegiance of an alien present in another country is determined by domicile and that precedent set by SCOTUS goes back to The Venus (1814), The Koszta Affair (1853), Elk v. Wilkins (1883), Fong Yue Ting (1893), Law Ow Bew (1892), and finally with Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
Wong Kim Arks parents were "Permanent Residents" who were "Domiciled" in San Francisco and held "Allegiance" to the United States of America when they gave birth to Wong Kim Ark. They were not Temporary Visa Holders/Sojourners/Workers, nor were they Illegal Migrants.To be protected under the 14th Amendment you need more than to be "subject to the laws of the united states" as was determined in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) where it was ruled that one must be "completely subject to the united states political jurisdiction" and "owing them (the united states) direct and immediate allegiance."This was later reaffirmed in 1898 with United Sates v. Wong Kim Ark in which the word "Domicile" was used 28 times, and the word "Allegiance" was used 114 times.What was the legal definition of "domicile" in 1898?>Domicile: Lawful presence with the intention to stay permanently. What was the legal definition of "Allegiance" in 1884?>Complete/Permanent/Natural Allegiance: an intrinsic obligation of loyalty to the government from birth.>Partial/Temporary/Local Allegiance: Owed in return for the protection provided by the sovereign during a sojourners stay.
>>533352486OMG I WILL LAUGH MY ASS OFFTHE GREAT REPLACEMENT PLANDELAYED
On April 15th Clarence Thomas held a televised speech from Yale University in which he elegantly laid out how and why it is so important to uphold the US Constitution as it is written. This televised speech can be seen as a sign that the court is leaning towards ruling in Trumps favor on Birthright Citizenship. As even though it would be the harder choice, it is the only choice which upholds the US Constitution and thus it is the right choice!https://x.com/markvalorian/status/2044630141482025225
>>533352486Does this have anything to do with the WEF saying automation will make countries with smaller populations thrive?
>>533352486If Trump can actually pull this off I’ll vote straight ticket Republican in the midterms this fall.
>>533352486Screencapped, I want to believe. But do you really think that the Jews, who were the ones behind the immivasion, would let us have our own country?
>>533352890Correct, the jews in power have come to the consensus that only the nation states that can automate effectively will stand on top in the future.As Larry Fink puts it: "The big winners will be countries with shrinking populations... They'll lead in robotics, AI, and productivity, substituting humans with machines."https://x.com/TFTC21/status/1880064998845931916
>>533353016Ditto.
>>533352486
Anon tries wishcasting!It's not effective!Why don't you just try praying anon? You keep posting the same legally bankrupt arguments here after the ship has sailed. SCOTUS is unlikely to rule your way anyway, and the SG did a poor job of presenting the case - so much so that your excuse for President stormed out and hald a melty on his social media platform halfway through oral arguments.What are you hoping to achieve anon?
>>533353413SCOTUS will uphold the US Constitution Why? Because its what the jews want.
>>533352486An important part of this is going to be undoing everything done by non Americans after this was passed
You've been posting this same thread template for months now. There's nothing new in your posts. Your script is boring and old.
This threads content sucks. I want new developments at the top. Not the same garbage on repeat.
>>533353833It's called consistency anonMy argument is cogent and logicalYou have no counter argument and that makes you seethe
>>533353563>SCOTUS will uphold the US Constitutionthe US constitution means whatever scotus says it doessaging this repeat low effort slop
>>533352486keep deluding yourself.this foid will take one look at her nigger child, shed a tear, and then announce total amnesty for all illegals now and forever and ever.
>>533353563The US Constitution clearly says that anyone born here is a citizen. That's why you and your ilk have been spending years trying to build up arguments about what 'subject to the jurisdiction' means, ignoring the fact that these issues were argued out well over a century ago. The only relevant of the allegiance issue is that the 14th amendment excludes children of diplomats, who are technically domiciled on foreign soil because embassies are considered extensions of their home countries.>>533353833My point exactly>>533353895No, it's just persistent. Your arguments have been dismantled repeatedly. The only seething is going to be coming from you when you lose the case and have to face the fact that you'll be in the legal wilderness for another 30 years. I hope you didn't bet your actual career on this anon, imagine all your scholarship and published writings being associated with a lame turkey of a case that no objective observer ever expected to fly in the first place.
>>533354269>ignoring the fact that these issues were argued out well over a century agoIncorrect, as you can see here >>533352486 and here >>533352533 I take the long standing precedent into great consideration and directly reference nearly a dozen SCOTUS cases and even precedent going all the way back to the Code of Justinian that support my argument>Your arguments have been dismantled repeatedly.Incorrect, you have never presented an argument because you have none, because you know that you would have to argue from a position of NOT upholding the US constitution because as Clarence Thomas so elegantly put it you are opposed to the US Constitution and the words written in the Declaration of Independence. Reminder that pic related is the current state of the oppositions lack of an argument.
Read Chief Justice Fuller's dissent in Wok Kim Ark, he provided evidence that US citizenship law did not have a precedent of birthright citizenship.
>>533352486if birthright citizenship is not allowed now does that mean we can finally deport all descendants of slaves?
>>533354688Wasted digitsAll these arguments were hashed in Congress and previous SCOTUS opinions before WKA, which was 128 years ago. Emer Vattel's Law of Nations is not legal precedent, neither is Justinian. Even a smoothbrained retard like yourself understand the US legal tradition originates in common and not civil law.>ncorrect, you have never presented an argument because you have none, because you know that you would have to argue from a position of NOT upholding the US constitution because as Clarence Thomas so elegantly put it you are opposed to the US Constitution and the words written in the Declaration of Independence.I've blown up your threads on multiple occasions and am much less inclined to effortpost now that the matter has already gone through oral argument. Of course, if you're treating Clarence Thomas as a legal oracle you're likely too retarded to comprehend why you're wrong.Happily I have better things to do on a friday evening thn school a heritage foundation casualty, good luck getting a job after putting all your chips on a generational failure faggot.
>>533355770>All these arguments were hashed in Congress and previous SCOTUS opinions before WKACorrect and those arguments which can be found in the Congressional Globe support my position pic related is one of them for you to read. Its Senator Williams arguing that even though someone may be on US Soil that does not make them "fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States and thus they are not protected under the 14th amendments Birthright Citizenship clause.>I've blown up your threads on multiple occasions Link to a single counter argument that you have presented, ever>Hint: You will not.
>>533356003Sure https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/524836451/#q524857323Emer Vattel isn't legal precedent, no matter how many weeks overdue it was from the library at the time of Washington's death. Nobody cares about Emer Vattel but you faggots, if they had wanted to write that into the Constitution they could have done so but they didn't so they didn't. >Its Senator Williams arguing About whether the children of ambassadors or Indians not taxed were included faggot. Nobody has ever argued the children of ambassadors were subject to US jurisdiction.
