Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: TheConservativeBanker
An originalist justice would base his decision on the meaning of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at time the amendment was ratified

So whose is subject to the jurisdiction? You're dealing with two separate persons here. The born and the unborn.

77 posted on 10/30/2018 7:01:54 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Poison Pill

In every country with whose citizenship laws I have some familiarity, the child is subject to the same jurisdictions as the parent, since children (especially infants} have no legal capacity to accept or reject legal jurisdiction of a nation. In exceptional cases the child can be taken away from the parent and becomes a ward of the state. In that case the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If the child is unborn it does not come under the jurisdiction of the US at the time the mother crosses our border. The issue of birthright citizenship does not apply to unborn children of illegal alien mothers. However, if you are referencing the abortion question, the born, unborn distinction is much more significant.


79 posted on 10/30/2018 7:14:17 AM PDT by TheConservativeBanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson