Placing courts over the Constitution
14th Amendment distortion

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been abused more than any other – by our own court system. It has been misused by our courts for “equal protection under the law” and other reasons. No mention
of the concept of “birthright citizenship” is found in this amendment, but many legal scholars continue to misinterpret it, using supreme court rulings to redefine the amendment to fit their desires.

Yet the idea has been imbedded in the public discourse, forced into the lexicon of immigration activists for decades, so much so that one would think it was based in the authors’ intent for the amendment.

The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves but did not assure them the same “equal” rights as those who had freed them, even though they were in the U.S. legally and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was written to rectify the oversight. At the time of its passage, the 1866 act defined the phrase, “persons within the jurisdiction of the United States,” as those present in the United States at the time of the act’s passage,
born here, which included all slaves and their children, subject to U.S. law.

The 14th Amendment was designed to protect the provisions of the 1866 act from future legislatures and activist courts. If the amendment means what it says, as its authors intended and as was ratified by the states, instead of the misconstrued meaning given it today, then we need to discern the intent of its authors.

Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was one author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause). In his notes of May 30, 1866 he clearly stated his intent for the amendment he helped compose:

“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…”

The second author of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, reinforced the
intent of Howard by stating that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant "not owing allegiance to anyone else” as in other nations.

Since those here illegally are still subject to the jurisdictions of their home countries, as foreigners or aliens, they cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Hence their children, born here illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home country, not citizens of the U.S. by “birthright.” Those children who are born to parents here legally, having no allegiance to a foreign power, are born citizens of the U.S.

The framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, passed July 9, 1868, used very plain language. Their position, as of those who defend their intent today, is not an “extreme position.” The intent of the 14th Amendment must be restored.

The “birthright citizenship” crowd fails to comprehend that immigration is for the benefit of the country, as a unified nation with legal immigrants assimilated as Americans. It’s not for the illegal alien, a citizen of another nation, a foreign nation.

Our nation cannot continue as a balkanized, open-borders welfare state. As Milton Friedman reminded us, “If you have a welfare state and want open immigration as practiced prior to 1914, that’s impossible. A welfare state and an open border cannot coexist. If this occurs, the nation fails.”

 

 

 Reprinted from the Hoosier Patriots Monday Morning Newswire 8/24/15