Davin News Server

On 2025-02-13 17:05, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:52:17 -0800,  Alan says...
> 
>> Subject: Re: If Injuns Weren't Included How Were Hispanics Who Weren't Even a PART of America?
>> From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics
>>
>> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
>> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
>> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:52:17 -0800
>>
>> On 2025-02-13 16:51, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:46:54 -0800,  Alan says...
>>>
>>>> 1812
>>>
>>> Off-topic.
> 
>> Really? In what way, Phil?
> 
> 1868
Why is it you won't deal with this, Phil?

'So our inquiry is framed as: in the nineteenth century language and 
context in which the clause was written, who was in the United States 
yet not subject to its jurisdiction?

As with the first part of the clause, Chief Justice Marshall provides a 
good beginning. In Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812), writing for the 
Court, Marshall discussed "a nation's jurisdiction," which he equated 
with national sovereign authority. Generally, Marshall said, a nation 
had jurisdiction over all people and things within its territory. But 
there were three exceptions, which he listed: foreign sovereigns 
themselves, foreign ambassadors and foreign armies. These exception 
apart, though, Marshall emphasized that aliens within sovereign 
territory were otherwise "amenable to the jurisdiction" of the United 
States (meaning governed by U.S. law).

Henry Wheaton, the leading nineteenth-century American writer on 
international law, described national jurisdiction in a similar way, 
using the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." Ordinarily, Wheaton 
wrote in Elements of International Law (1836), a nation had 
"jurisdiction," meaning "sovereign power of municipal legislation," 
within its territory. But, he continued, foreign ambassadors and their 
households had diplomatic immunity under international law and so were 
"excluded from the local jurisdiction." Immunity thus was an exception 
from the territorial jurisdiction to which they, as aliens within 
sovereign territory, would otherwise be subject.

...

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion 
of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard 
said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't 
extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude 
tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Thus, as with the first part of the clause, the drafting history 
confirms the pre-drafting ordinary meaning of the relevant language. 
"Subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. meant people under U.S. 
sovereign authority. That included everyone within U.S. territory, 
excluding only foreign diplomats, foreign armies and native tribes. (As 
shown by the Court's decision in Fleming v. Page, discussed in my last 
post, it was possible to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction outside U.S. 
territory; anyone in this category would be excluded from citizenship by 
the first part of the clause).'