This is Why The Left Went After John Eastman

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
66,985

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!​

John C. Eastman

The 14th Amendment does not confer automatic citizenship.​

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.

Claremont scholars have made the argument in books, law review articles, congressional testimony, and legal briefs. President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, Edwin Meese, even joined one of those briefs, in which we argued against treating enemy combatant Yaser Esam Hamdi as a citizen merely because he had been born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, while his father was working in the U.S. on a temporary work visa. Perhaps as a result of our brief in that case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia referred to Hamdi as a “presumed citizen” in his dissenting opinion.

Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

Think of it this way. Someone from Great Britain visiting the United States is subject to our laws while here, which is to say subject to our partial or territorial jurisdiction. He must drive on the right-hand side of the road rather than the left, for example. But he does not thereby owe allegiance to the United States; he is not subject to being drafted into our army; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason (as opposed to ordinary violations of law) if he takes up arms against the United States, for he has breached no oath of allegiance.

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind?

The answer is here: https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/
 
A serious question to you.
How many women have you raped? Seriously.
Have you ever been accused by a woman of touching them inappropriately or without consent?
I’m asking because I have this belief that you openly back people who do these things and other criminal activities because you have done so yourself in the past.
 
A serious question to you.
How many women have you raped? Seriously.
Have you ever been accused by a woman of touching them inappropriately or without consent?
I’m asking because I have this belief that you openly back people who do these things and other criminal activities because you have done so yourself in the past.
The answer to your mental derangement is none and no. Nor do I prey on the women here or have a criminal record. Perhaps you're in the wrong thread. Did you even read the article? Are you shit faced?
 
The answer to your mental derangement is none and no. Nor do I prey on the women here or have a criminal record. Perhaps you're in the wrong thread. Did you even read the article? Are you shit faced?
No. No, I am not deranged.Why would I read your fucking shit article?
If you don’t prey on women, then trump and Pete Hegseth should offend you. They don’t, so I believe you to be, if not a liar, disingenuous.
 

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!​

John C. Eastman

The 14th Amendment does not confer automatic citizenship.​

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.

Claremont scholars have made the argument in books, law review articles, congressional testimony, and legal briefs. President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, Edwin Meese, even joined one of those briefs, in which we argued against treating enemy combatant Yaser Esam Hamdi as a citizen merely because he had been born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, while his father was working in the U.S. on a temporary work visa. Perhaps as a result of our brief in that case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia referred to Hamdi as a “presumed citizen” in his dissenting opinion.

Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

Think of it this way. Someone from Great Britain visiting the United States is subject to our laws while here, which is to say subject to our partial or territorial jurisdiction. He must drive on the right-hand side of the road rather than the left, for example. But he does not thereby owe allegiance to the United States; he is not subject to being drafted into our army; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason (as opposed to ordinary violations of law) if he takes up arms against the United States, for he has breached no oath of allegiance.

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind?

The answer is here: https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/
The argument used by pro childbirth rights is conflating the meaning of legal jurisdiction that people who are in our country are obligated to exist within the framework of our statutory laws ( the bank robber example ) as apposed to the reference of "Jurisdiction thereof" which, in the opinion of many legal scholars, support the original meaning which refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that foreign government has over that individual. Secretaries of state, by executive fiat, and over time, have accepted the wrong interpretation of the 14th. There are no statutory guidelines within the 14th amendment that support anchor babies or babies born of illegal migrants, tourist or diplomats with diplomatic immunity as being citizens. We're the only country that does that. The original intent was to assure citizenship for freed slaves. Like you I also in earlier post listed court rulings and the explanations of those rulings.

.Civil Rights act of 1866
.Wong Kim case

Interesting read;

https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
 
Last edited:
No. No, I am not deranged.Why would I read your fucking shit article?
If you don’t prey on women, then trump and Pete Hegseth should offend you. They don’t, so I believe you to be, if not a liar, disingenuous.
I made a challenge for wrongway, way back, it was: to get a woman here on lit to either meet, have cyber sex, or anything that construes conversation. He failed to get one. Not even his offer of canned corn worked.
 
If anybody ever "went after" Eastman, it's not because of that, it's because of this:

John Charles Eastman (born 1960)[1] is an American lawyer and academic. Due to his efforts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, attempting to keep then-president Donald Trump in office and obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's victory, he has been criminally indicted,[2] ordered inactive by the State Bar of California, and recommended for disbarment.[3] Eastman has lost eligibility to practice law in California state courts, pending his appeal of the state bar judge's ruling that recommended him for disbarment.[4][5][6] Eastman is also named as a co-conspirator in the federal indictment brought against Trump over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and prevent the certification of Biden's election.[7]
 
The argument used by pro childbirth rights is conflating the meaning of legal jurisdiction that people who are in our country are obligated to exist within the framework of our statutory laws ( the bank robber example ) as apposed to the reference of "Jurisdiction thereof" which, in the opinion of many legal scholars, support the original meaning which refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that foreign government has over that individual. Secretaries of state, by executive fiat, and over time, have accepted the wrong interpretation of the 14th. There are no statutory guidelines within the 14th amendment that support anchor babies or babies born of illegal migrants, tourist or diplomats with diplomatic immunity as being citizens. We're the only country that does that. The original intent was to assure citizenship for freed slaves. Like you I also in earlier post listed court rulings and the explanations of those rulings.

.Civil Rights act of 1866
.Wong Kim case

Interesting read;

https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
Those who believe being born here makes you a citizen only need to explain why American Indians, who were all born here, weren't citizens until Congress made them so in 1924. It all goes back to the operative language, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." People need to research exactly what that means and how it is applied.
 
Those who believe being born here makes you a citizen only need to explain why American Indians, who were all born here, weren't citizens until Congress made them so in 1924. It all goes back to the operative language, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." People need to research exactly what that means and how it is applied.
It is applied to the children of undocumented immigrants. It was not always, in all respects, applied to Indians.
 
That has been the practice but it isn't in the law. You will become educated on this subject as this issue unfolds.
No child of immigrants who are not diplomats would have any legal grounds to claim exemption from U.S. jurisdiction.
 
How many of the convicted felon's kids will be deported? His baby mamas are all immigrants.
Awwww would you like a little cheese with that whine! Whine and cry whine and cry! We are so God damn sick of you whining babies! This is OUR GOVERNMENT NOW, the government WE THE PEOPLE voted in! Sit down and shut the fuck up!
 
Awwww would you like a little cheese with that whine! Whine and cry whine and cry! We are so God damn sick of you whining babies! This is OUR GOVERNMENT NOW, the government WE THE PEOPLE voted in! Sit down and shut the fuck up!
So what? It was "OUR GOVERNMENT NOW, the government WE THE PEOPLE voted in!" when Obama was president.
 
A serious question to you.
How many women have you raped? Seriously.
Have you ever been accused by a woman of touching them inappropriately or without consent?
I’m asking because I have this belief that you openly back people who do these things and other criminal activities because you have done so yourself in the past.
Everyone laughs at you.
 
Back
Top