30% of any given population will hold radically different views than the majority of the population.
There is a diplomatic way of saying this: In most large, diverse populations, a significant minority—often on the order of a quarter to a third—will differ from the majority on at least some widely held social and political ideas. Which brings us to the opinion polls showing 32-36% of Americans support the current policies of the U.S. President. In turn, this brings us to a court case currently pending before the U. S. Supreme Court.
Read the following. If you have a high school or higher level of education, you may be able to understand this. From a musical thought from Sam Cook, you may not know much about history, much about biology, much about a science book, much about the French YOU took, but obviously you can read. Try this:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
We may not know what “born” and “naturalized” mean nor “subject to the jurisdiction” means. But we get the general gist of the paragraph. However, if you went to law school you may have questions. Like, “What does ‘born’ really mean? What does ‘naturalized’ mean? Or, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’?
Because of the 30% mythology, we must acknowledge that there are some who do not know the meaning of these terms. If such people went to law school, they may require definitions more explicit than the standard definition provided by the 2, 662 page WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY with fifteen copyrights from 1909 to 1971. As a public service, the definition for the terms in question are offered, more or less, from the aforementioned dictionary.
Definitions – More or Less
“born” – “brought into existence by or as if by birth.”
Now, let’s be honest here without snark (whatever that is). This definition only begs the question, What is ‘birth’? Within the context of the 14th Amendment, a person is “brought into existence” by being born. At our current level of technological development, there is only one way to bring a person into existence. A woman goes through a period of gestation–development of an embryo which evolves into a fetus–and thereby brings a person into existence. Bringing a person into existence is no easy task. The process might take a couple of minutes or hours, not to mention the events preceding a pregnancy. In her book Rough Draft: A Memoir, Katy Tur (Katherine Bear Tur-Dokoupil) provides a very informative exposition on the process of bringing a person into existence. Very easy to understand. We suspect however that there are at least two, maybe three justices, one of whom is caught-up in religious dogma, on the Supreme Court who don’t get it. Even with pictures they would not understand how a person is brought into existence.
“naturalized”-”to establish in new surroundings: introduce into common use”
Wo!. This is a rather heavy. There is obviously a process related to “naturalized” as there is to “born”. Unlike “born”, there is no clear, straightforward explanation. Let us go bureaucratic. First, there must be a person in existence. The person must submit a Form N-400, submit to an interview with a representative of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, take a civics test and swear an Oath of Allegiance to the United States–which once meant something to government officials taking the oath but is now just a mumble of words signifying nothing.
“subject to the jurisdiction”
Let’s start with the really, really big word here.: “subject”. The person brought into existence by being born is the “subject”. The act of being born introduces the person into “new surroundings”. Dovetails with the definition of “naturalized” in a very logical way. So now, we must examine this word “jurisdiction”. It is one of my favorite words because there is rarely an opportunity to use it. I would like to be able to say, My car is under my jurisdiction. Two realities make such a statement stupid: (1) I own the car. I determine where it goes, when it goes and, within physical limits, how it goes. This is ownership, not jurisdiction. (2) The car, even if equipped with the latest, smartest artificial intelligence capable of letting the car drive itself, ownership and responsibility trumps (oops) jurisdiction. Ownership and responsibility resides with me while jurisdiction resides with the city, state, etc.. WEBSTER’s definition of jurisdiction makes it rather clear:
“The legal power, right, or authority to hear and determine a cause considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter: legal power to interpret and administer the law in the premises”.
Simple question: who has jurisdiction over a person brought into existence in “new surroundings” or premises?
So, we have Supreme Court Justices consisting of lawyers. Lawyers may not be the best custodians of the U. S. Constitution. Especially lawyers with an agenda. Especially lawyers who can determine without a grimace that all are equal under the law EXCEPT the President.
The question of Birth Right Citizenship was decided in 1898 and pretty much follows the definitions given here. Yet, yet! there is that 30 to 36%.
Barnesfolio 