justin_o_guy2 wrote on 08/26/19 at 06:52:26:



Hmmm... really?

Well jog, you think the Founders ever expected to see AK-47's in the hands of the common joe blow?  No.  "Well regulated militia" has a broad interpretations - you're a prime example.

If there's no interpretation on the 14th, then the 2nd should live on the same playing field.  "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."

See how that works?

No, Twisted and Tortured, the founders had no idea what weapons would be available in the future.
But they wanted US to have equal equipment to the government.
If you could grasp the
Anchor baby thing, you just might have a chance at understanding that the
Second Amendment isn't PERMISSION for the people, but restrictions on the government you worship.

T And T Garage wrote on 08/26/19 at 21:55:11:


Are illegal aliens "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if they have not presented them selves as such?

Funny thing about the Constitution,... all the parts you like are sacrosanct...
The other bits are a pain in the arse...

verslagen1 wrote on 08/27/19 at 11:50:55:


Yep, that was a Supreme Court decision/observation.  But - and it's a big but - the Amendment stands without that distinction.  So... interpretation is open.

From Wikipedia:

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "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 Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.

Most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides birthright citizenship even to those born in the United States to illegal immigrants.[24] As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of undocumented immigrants must surely be excluded from citizenship.[31]
However, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a case involving educational entitlements for children in the United States unlawfully, Justice Brennan, writing for a five-to-four majority, held that such persons were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus protected by its laws. In a footnote, he observed, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."



See?  Lots of room for debate.

AND SUBJECT TO
That's part of the equation.

Anchor baby precedent from 1898...
Ann C claims this is something new from 1982.
Annie's the idiot...

The clause's meaning with regard to a child of immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).[63] The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying out business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.