American Indians always were citizens under the 14th Amendment depending on how the "jurisdiction" phrase was interpreted.
"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP - IT'S "ALL OVER RED ROVER" SCOTUS WILL RULE IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP
- Thread starter Dachshund
- Start date
So are you saying we should just ignore the SCOTUS?
The SCOTUS said it was interpreted to mean who they owed allegiance to at birth. So no, according to the SCOTUS they weren't always citizens hence the need for the Snyder act.
Bingham who wrote the 14th amendment and remained politically active never said the Snyder act was not needed because of the 14th Amendment and he did not say anything about the Elk case.
There is only one way it should be interpreted. The SCOTUS studied the 14th and decided what the correct interpretation meant and they said:
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:
"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You do not speak for them. Why do you presume that you do?
This has been explained to you many times in many different ways. Are you too stupid to learn?
Tell me when you believe birthright citizenship will be repealed.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The Snyder Act was a Band-aid for the situation, addressing status of Native Americans, but no "possible loophole" in the Constitution can be "closed" by any law passed by Congress because no such law can change the Constitution or somehow supercede it.
The Snyder Act was needed to give Native American citizenship because at the time of their births they owed their allegiance to another political power. They were in the exact same situation as Elk. The same thing can be applied to El Salvadoran children born in the US. For them to become citizens they would need an act of Congress.
Because I have read their reasons for doing what they did.
No, I'm too smart to believe your lies.
Well it does not need to be repealed since it was never Constitutional in the first place. At least not how you think it is. The SCOTUS will be hearing arguments beginning May 15th. How long it takes for their decision I don't know.
Into the Night
Verified User
The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
Into the Night
Verified User
SCOTUS has no say. Congress initiated the Snyder Act.
Into the Night
Verified User
...again... They'll be back here again, though. They have little left in government to push their idiot views with.So the Libratrds have scattered like roaches.
If SCOTUS said Elk and other Indians were citizens because of the 14th there would have been no need for the Snyder Act.
So you say. You think the SCOTUS made a mistake with the Elk decision. I think the educated and experiences Justices got it right and you are full of shit.
Search Labs | AI Overview
Learn more
The Supreme Court is considered the final authority on interpreting the U.S. Constitution. This is due to its power of judicial review, which allows the Court to declare laws or actions unconstitutional, and to its role as the highest court in the federal judicial system. While other branches of government (the Executive and Legislative) also interpret the Constitution in their respective actions, the Supreme Court's interpretations are considered authoritative and binding.
Into the Night
Verified User
They were not citizens of the United States until the Snyder Act, or if they were put on federal reservations (placing them immediately as subjects of U.S. jurisdiction, according to treaty).
Into the Night
Verified User
They have no authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III.
It has none here.
It MUST declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional. It has no choice in the matter.
No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
No branch of any government has authority to interpret the constitution declaring and defining that government.
The Supreme Court has no authority of any kind over the Constitution, including how it is to be interpreted.
See Article III for the authority the Supreme Court (and lower courts) DO have.
Attempted proof by Holy Link. Google is not the Constitution nor the Supreme Court.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct. There were many people with many misconceptions.
They were born in the US, were citizens per the 14th Amendment, and yet somehow still required clarification of their status due to the many people with their many misconception.
They were also in the same situation as Ark.
There is no such thing as Salvadoran children born in the US. You are referring to American citizens being born in the US.
No act of Congress can grant citizenship.
So now you are deleting what the SCOTUS said in the Elk decision. You are very desperate.
Sure it can they did it during the Reagan Administration too.