Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ms. Toad

(38,623 posts)
21. This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted.
Sun Mar 29, 2026, 09:52 PM
18 hrs ago
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.


In other words, tribal nations are foreign governments. Prior to the Snyder Act, the nation's territory was a domain of that (foreign) government.

This case doesn't help them.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy 23 hrs ago #1
With THIS court? bluestarone 23 hrs ago #3
My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy 21 hrs ago #8
I know for sure bluestarone 20 hrs ago #10
Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 9 hrs ago #32
Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic 23 hrs ago #2
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY 22 hrs ago #4
Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow 22 hrs ago #6
But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy 21 hrs ago #9
Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow 20 hrs ago #11
Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy 20 hrs ago #12
"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow 20 hrs ago #13
All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy 20 hrs ago #15
Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 11 hrs ago #30
And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 6 hrs ago #36
That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 5 hrs ago #37
That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 4 hrs ago #42
Not exactly. Ms. Toad 19 hrs ago #17
Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX 18 hrs ago #23
It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad 18 hrs ago #24
I disagree Fiendish Thingy 17 hrs ago #25
"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 7 hrs ago #33
But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 7 hrs ago #34
Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 6 hrs ago #35
Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 5 hrs ago #38
At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 4 hrs ago #43
Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 16 hrs ago #27
Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 5 hrs ago #39
In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 4 hrs ago #41
I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase 22 hrs ago #5
The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 19 hrs ago #18
Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib 21 hrs ago #7
Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal 20 hrs ago #14
So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 18 hrs ago #20
That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal 18 hrs ago #22
I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 15 hrs ago #28
If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 10 hrs ago #31
What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun 19 hrs ago #16
Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 19 hrs ago #19
This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad 18 hrs ago #21
I'm not buying that argument Bayard 17 hrs ago #26
Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 14 hrs ago #29
pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 4 hrs ago #40
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Looking to limit birthrig...»Reply #21