[johnwk]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think being subject to the jurisdiction of the US means not being under allegiance to another government. More than just citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But even if Mr. Trumbull thought this was a fancy way to say "citizens", it is not true that US citizens cannot owe allegiance to another government. The US recognizes dual nationals, and that dual or multiple nationality may arise before or after acquiring US citizenship.

Thank you for expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. Let me point out your opinion is not in harmony with the most fundamental rule of constitutional law:

"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

And just what was the purpose the framers sought to accomplish with the 14th Amendment, and in particular it‘s first section?

Our SCOTUS answers this in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

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.

Now why would the SCOTUS make a statement that the wording '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?

Maybe it’s because the court is required to abide by the intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and, the statement made by the Court expresses the very intentions, as expressed by Senator Howard who moved the Senate on May 30th, 1866, to take up H.J. Res. 127, which proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Upon the Senate taking up the motion, Senator Howard states the following:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890]

The truth is, 'subject to its jurisdiction' contained in the 14th Amendment, was intentionally adopted to exclude various classes of people from citizenship!


JWK

Those who wish to subjugate our written Constitution, do so by ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was framed and ratified!