NEWSMAX’s go-to guy for legal pontificating seems to be former Judge Andrew Napolitano. If NEWSMAX has employed Andrew Napolitano as a talking head to reflect NEWSMAX’S mission, it would be safe to assume that mission is certainly not to support and defend the text of our federal constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
For example Napolitano goes to great lengths to assert the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a child born to an illegal entrant while on American soil becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
But those who defend the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, and with respect to the qualifying words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, understand Napolitano is blowing smoke and ignoring a fundamental rule when determining what our Constitution means.
That rule was stated in crystal clear language by our Supreme Court a number of times, e.g., ”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
One of the few times the Supreme Court did approached answering this question was in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.
So, why would our Supreme Court make the above comments which are contrary to Napolitano’s assertion?
The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment, and it provides the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866), 1st column halfway down
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
“Now, all that 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.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that 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.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
So why is Andrew Napolitano, the go-to guy at NEWMAX for its legal pontificating, when Napolitano ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction, stated as follows?
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.” Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197
Napolitano seems to be an advocate of the Humpty Dumpty theory of language when interpreting what our constitution means:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
For example Napolitano goes to great lengths to assert the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a child born to an illegal entrant while on American soil becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
But those who defend the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, and with respect to the qualifying words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, understand Napolitano is blowing smoke and ignoring a fundamental rule when determining what our Constitution means.
That rule was stated in crystal clear language by our Supreme Court a number of times, e.g., ”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
One of the few times the Supreme Court did approached answering this question was in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.
So, why would our Supreme Court make the above comments which are contrary to Napolitano’s assertion?
The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment, and it provides the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866), 1st column halfway down
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
“Now, all that 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.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that 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.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
So why is Andrew Napolitano, the go-to guy at NEWMAX for its legal pontificating, when Napolitano ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction, stated as follows?
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.” Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197
Napolitano seems to be an advocate of the Humpty Dumpty theory of language when interpreting what our constitution means:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
