Skip to content

Essay About 14th Amendment Wikipedia

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, incorporated Pondicherry (now Puducherry) as the ninth Union territory of India, and also gave Parliament the authority to create by law, Legislatures and Councils of Ministers for the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Puducherry.

The French establishments of Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahé and Yanam became territories of the Indian Union on 16 August 1962, with the ratification of the Treaty of Cession by India and France. The 14th Amendment came into effect on 28 December 1962.

Text[edit]

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

1. Short title This Act may be called the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962.

2. Amendment of article 81 In article 81 of the Constitution, in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), for the words "twenty members", the words "twenty-five members" shall be substituted.

3. Amendment of the First Schedule In the First Schedule to the Constitution, under the heading "II. THE UNION TERRITORIES", after entry 8, the following entry shall be inserted, namely:—

"9. Pondicherry — The territories which immediately before the sixteenth day of August, 1962, were comprised in the French Establishment in India known as Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam".

4. Insertion of new article 239A After article 239 of the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted, namely:—

"239A. Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories.
(1) Parliament may by law create for any of the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu, and Pondicherry—
(a) a body, whether elected or partly nominated and partly elected, to function as a Legislature for the Union territory, or
(b) a Council of Ministers, or both with such constitution, powers and functions, in each case, as may be specified in the law.
(2) Any such law as is referred to in clause (1) shall not be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purpose of article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending this Constitution".

5. Amendment of article 240 In article 240 of the Constitution in clause (1) —

(a) after entry (d), the following entry shall be inserted, namely:—
"(e) Pondicherry";
(b) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely:—
"Provided that when any body is created under article 239A to function as a Legislature for the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu or Pondicherry, the President shall not make any regulation for the peace, progress and good government of that Union territory with effect from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Legislature."

6. Amendment of the Fourth Schedule In the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, in the Table —

(a) after entry 20, the entry, "21. Pondicherry. I" shall be inserted;
(b) for the figures "225", the figures "226" shall be substituted.[1][2]

Constitutional changes[edit]

Section 2 of the amendment amended article 81(1) (b) of the Constitution in order to raise the maximum number of seats in the Lok Sabha for members representing the Union territories from 20 to 25, thus enabling representation to be given to the Union territory of Pondicherry. The First Schedule to the Constitution was amended to include the territories of Pondicherry with effect from 16 August 1962. The Fourth Schedule to the Constitution was amended to allocate one seat in Rajya Sabha to the Union territory of Pondicherry.

The insertion of a new article 239A in the Constitution, gave Parliament the authority to create by law, Legislatures and Councils of Ministers for the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry. Section 4 of the Amendment provided that any law passed for this purpose would not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of article 368. Clause (1) of article 240 of the Constitution was amended to include the Union territory of Pondicherry in order to enable the President to "make regulations for the peace, progress and good government" of the territory. However, the President would cease to make regulations, when any body is created under the new article 239A to function as a Legislature for Union territories of Goa, Daman and Diu or Pondicherry, with effect from the date appointed for the first meeting of such Legislature.[3]

Proposal and enactment[edit]

The Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Bill, 1962 (Bill No. 86 of 1962) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 30 August 1962. It was introduced by Lal Bahadur Shastri, then Minister of Home Affairs, and sought to amend articles 81 and 240, and the First and the Fourth Schedules to the Constitution. It also sought to insert a new article 239A in the Constitution.[3] The full text of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the bill is given below:

With the ratification of the Treaty of Cession by the Governments of India and France, on the 16th August, 1962, the French establishments of Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam became territories of the Indian Union with effect from that date. This Bill provides for these territories being specified in the Constitution itself as a Union territory called 'Pondicherry'. Under article 81(1)(b) of the Constitution, not more than twenty members are to represent the Union territories in the House of the People. This maximum has already been reached. The Bill accordingly seeks to increase this number to twenty-five to enable representation being given immediately to Pondicherry in the House of the People and to provide for future contingencies. The Bill also provides for representation of the territory in the Council of States.

It is proposed to create Legislatures and Councils of Ministers in the Union territories of Himanchal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry broadly on the pattern of the scheme which was in force in some of the Part C States before the reorganisation of the States. The Bill seeks to confer necessary legislative power on Parliament to enact laws for this purpose through a new article 239A which follows generally the provisions of article 240 as it stood before the reorganisation of the States.

The bill was considered and passed, with some modifications, by the Lok Sabha on 4 September 1962. The bill passed by the Lok Sabha, was debated and passed by the Rajya Sabha on 7 September 1962. Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 to 7 of the Bill were adopted, in the original form, by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on 4 and 7 September 1962, respectively. Clause 4 of the Bill sought to insert a new article 239A in the Constitution, which would empower Parliament to create by law, Legislatures and Councils of Ministers for certain Union territories. Hari Vishnu Kamath moved an amendment to Clause 4 in the Lok Sabha, which sought to omit the words "nominated or" after the word "whether" in clause 1(a) of the new article 239A, be omitted. The amended Clause 4 was adopted by the Lok Sabha, and later by the Rajya Sabha. The effect of the amendment was that the Legislatures of the Union territories could not be wholly nominated bodies.[3]

The bill received assent from then President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan on 28 December 1962, and came into force on the same date.[3][4] It was notified in The Gazette of India on 29 December 1962.[5]

Ratification[edit]

The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below:[3]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868. It states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This clause represented Congress's reversal of a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.[2][3]

Text[edit]

Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Naturalization[edit]

The reference to naturalization in the Citizenship Clause is to the process by which immigrants are granted United States citizenship. Congress has power in relation to naturalization under the Naturalization Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution.[4][5][6][7][8]

Senate debate[edit]

The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[9] While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act,[3][10] which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanLyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.[11]

There was no recorded debate over who was encompassed by the expression "not subject to any foreign power" or whether these same people were excluded by the wording of the Citizenship Clause. Howard, when introducing the addition to the Amendment, stated that it was "the law of the land already" and that it excluded only "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".[12] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[13][14] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as PresidentAndrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth,[15][16][17] and no senator offered a contrary opinion. Trumbull even went so far as to assert that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, although Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants.[15] Senator John Conness of California expressed support for the Amendment for giving a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States to any parentage (including Chinese noncitizen residents who do not intend to reside permanently in the United States), even though he (and others) thought it had already been guaranteed by the Act,[18] whereas Cowan opposed the Amendment (and Act), arguing that it would have the undesirable outcome of extending citizenship to the children of Chinese and Gypsy immigrants.[19]

Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil Rights Act or Howard's proposal more effectively excluded Indians on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Doolittle asserted, and Senators Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana concurred, that all Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[20] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Indian tribes, which governed themselves and made treaties with the United States.[21][22] Moreover, they objected to the phrase "Indians not taxed" on the basis that it could be construed as making citizenship dependent on wealth and also that it would allow states to manipulate who is a citizen in their state through tax policy.[23]

Birthright citizenship[edit]

Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States

The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"—does not exist in most of Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law[24] and is common in the Americas.

Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[25] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[3]Elk v. Wilkins established that Indian tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Indian tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe.[26] Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Indians were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[3] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

A 2010 Congressional Research Service report, however, observed that, though it could be argued that Congress has no power to define "subject to the jurisdiction" and the terms of citizenship in a manner contrary to the Supreme Court's understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as expressed in Wong Kim Ark and Elk, since Congress does have broad power to pass necessary and proper legislation to regulate immigration and naturalization under the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cls. 4 & 18 of the constitution Congress arguably has the power to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the purpose of regulating immigration.[27]

Historian Eric Foner has explored the question of birthright citizenship and argues that "birthright citizenship stands as an example of the much-abused idea of American exceptionalism...birthright citizenship does make the United States (along with Canada) unique in the developed world. No European nation recognizes the principle."[28]

Loss of citizenship[edit]

The Fourteenth Amendment does not provide any procedure for revocation of United States citizenship. Under the Supreme Court precedent of Afroyim v. Rusk, loss of 14th-Amendment-based U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:[29]

  • Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.
  • Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions (e.g., treason) which demonstrate an intention to give up U.S. citizenship.[30] Such an act of expatriationmust be accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship.[31]

For jus sanguinis U.S. citizenship, i.e., citizenship for the children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents, which is established only by congressional statute and not the U.S. Constitution (including its amendments), these restrictions do not apply (e.g., cf. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)).

Right to travel[edit]

In Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court held that this clause protects an aspect of the right to travel.[32] Specifically, the Saenz Court said that the Citizenship Clause protects a citizen's right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally:

[T]he Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly equates citizenship with residence: "That Clause does not provide for, and does not allow for, degrees of citizenship based on length of residence." Zobel, 457 U. S., at 69. It is equally clear that the Clause does not tolerate a hierarchy of 45 subclasses of similarly situated citizens based on the location of their prior residence. … [T]he protection afforded to the citizen by the Citizenship Clause of that Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the National Government as well as the States.

The Saenz Court also mentioned the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which had stated that "a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."[33]

Natural-born citizens[edit]

Main article: Natural born citizen

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) at "natural-born" defines it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later). It lists this definition as going back to the 16th century. OED cites a law of 1695 (Act 7 & 8 Will. III (1696) 478) that states, "A Natural born Subject of this Realm...Who shall be willing to Enter and Register himself for the Service of His Majesty." It also quotes Thomas Jefferson 1776 (in T. Jefferson Public Papers 344): "All persons who..propose to reside..and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born." Blacks Law Dictionary (10th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."[34]Webster's International Dictionary (3rd edition, 2000) defines "natural-born" as " especially: having the legal status of citizen or subject."

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a "natural-born citizen." According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[35]

The majority opinion by Justice Horace Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark observed that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen" and "natural born citizen"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[3]

This observation by Gray about the term "natural-born citizen" was obiter dicta, since the case did not involve any controversy about presidential eligibility.[36]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 597.
  2. ^ abCongressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2896.
  3. ^ abcdeUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169U.S.649 (1898).
  4. ^Reyes, Carla. "Naturalization Law, Immigration Flow, and Policy" in Transforming America: Perspectives on U.S. Immigration, Volume 1, p. 149 (Michael LeMay ed., ABC-CLIO, 2013).
  5. ^Epps, Garrett. The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History". 60 American University Law Review 331, 352 (2010). "This language [in the Civil Rights Act of 1866] is significant but does not directly demonstrate anything about the 'clear intent' of the Citizenship Clause. First, it is a statute, enacted under the authority of some combination of the Naturalization Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment is a change to the Constitution, creating entirely new rights and providing government with new powers."
  6. ^Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967). "Therefore, a bill was introduced [in 1818] to provide that a person could voluntarily relinquish his citizenship by declaring such relinquishment in writing before a district court and then departing from the country. The opponents of the bill argued that Congress had no constitutional authority, either express or implied, under either the Naturalization Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, to provide that a certain act would constitute expatriation."
  7. ^Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983). "It is also argued that these cases present a nonjusticiable political question, because Chadha is merely challenging Congress' authority under the Naturalization Clause, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18."
  8. ^In contrast to the aforementioned sources, Black's Law Dictionary defines "Naturalization Clause" as being equivalent to the Citizenship Clause. See Epps, Garrett, ed. (2009). "Naturalization Clause". Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 1126. ISBN 978-0-314-19949-2.  
  9. ^Robert, Pear (1996-08-07). "Citizenship Proposal Faces Obstacle in the Constitution". New York Times. 
  10. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
  11. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2890, 2892-3, 2896.
  12. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890.
  13. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2897.
  14. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 572. During the debate on the Civil Rights Act, Trumbull stated, "The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens'; but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."
  15. ^ abCongressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:

    Mr. Cowan: I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
    Mr. Trumbull: Undoubtedly.
    ...
    Mr. Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
    Mr. Cowan: I think not.
    Mr. Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
    Mr. Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
    Mr. Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.

  16. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2.
  17. ^See veto message by President Andrew Johnson.
  18. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2891. During the debate on the Amendment, Conness declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens." He further added that "they [the Chinese] all return to their own country at some time or other".
  19. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2. Cowan expressed concern over the prospect of a state not being able to determine its own citizens. In particular, he identified two groups that he felt were unsuitable for citizenship but would have such bestowed upon their children by the Amendment: Chinese and Gypsies, the latter of which he described thus, "who owe to her [Pennsylvania] no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognized no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own ...; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go." He subsequently cautioned against adopting the proposed Amendment, "Are these people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? ... If the mere fact of being born in a country confers that right then they will have it. ... Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies."
  20. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2893-4.
  21. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senate Judiciary Committee ChairmanLyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? ... We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. ... If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?. ... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? ... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."
  22. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895. Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.
  23. ^Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2894-5.
  24. ^Today British nationality is defined in statute, which supersedes the common law.
  25. ^Elk v. Wilkins, 112U.S.94 (1884).
  26. ^Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 1 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512635-1. 
  27. ^Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents(PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. August 12, 2010. p. 15 (page 18 of the PDF). 
  28. ^Eric Foner, "Birthright Citizenship Is the Good Kind of American Exceptionalism," The Nation Aug. 27, 2015
  29. ^Afroyim v. Rusk387U.S.253 (1967)
  30. ^U.S. State Department, Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality. Archived April 16, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
  31. ^Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): "As we have said, Afroyim requires that the record support a finding that the expatriating act was accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship."
  32. ^Saenz v. Roe, 526U.S.489 (1999).
  33. ^Slaughterhouse Cases, 83U.S.36 (1873).
  34. ^"citizen". Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.). Thompson Reuters. 2009. 
  35. ^"7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency."
  36. ^Sen Hu and Jlellin Dong, eds. (2010). The Rocky Road to Liberty: A Documented History of Chinese Immigration and Exclusion. Javvin. p. 189. 

References[edit]

External links[edit]