This is a small tangent, but the fifth amendment is airtight, and lawyers often get set on fire when they try to assume something from the the silence/invocation of the 5th. Here is one of the most well known times a judge was spitting fire over it.
I rate this post winner.
There's no need for wiggle room or creativity. Last I checked, they're still citizens of the country they came from, thus under their jurisdiction, no?
This makes sense, but I think maybe it's a bad idea to bar someone from running for office. People were stupid enough to vote for the puddin brained faggot, blame them, not the puddin brained faggot.
You can't undo what was never done. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the complete, unfettered jurisdiction in the meaning of sovereignty - when some mexican broad waddles across the border and shits out a spiclet, she and and the spawn are under the auspices of Mexican jurisdiction and sovereignty as she is a Mexican citizen and the spiclet is her spawn. The US may have limited jurisdiction over people within its borders as tourists (or criminals) but that is not complete, as is required by the Amendment. The full historical analysis, including the records of the Congressional debates which disclaim this insane interpretation are easily available.
No they weren't and you know that.
I'd be really anal about this particular line: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
I also highly doubt that Elon would even be able to take a glance at the files, and certainly not the parts that would damn a public figure. If the Epstein stuff really is the political equivalent to a nuke, they'd have that under lock and key, and the fewer eyes on it, the better. Elon is not someone who was working on the case, I don't think they'd say "Oh sure, Mr. Musk! Here's the Epstein master list! Pinky promise not to sperg on X, The Everything App about this?" He has an air of authority to him because he worked for the government, but I imagine his claims on who is or isn't in the files aren't solidly reliable. Perhaps you could argue his proximity to the case and potential clients would grant more confidence to his claims than any other random guy, but I'd say that we shouldn't take him on his word because of that.
I'd have them read Fox in Socks so I can weed out ESLs too.
not really i think the supreme courts still trying to mill around should they rule on it.
I'm not a lawyer, and have at best a passing interest in the subject, however, I am aware it's alleged that there's at least some ground to stand on here. The basic idea is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "sole jurisdiction thereof", IE: if you can go to another nation and be welcomed, you're not an in-born American. Popular reasoning and legal thought of the time.
Also available is the plain and simple final text of the 14th Amendment and that makes all the stuff you mentioned irrelevant. The words say what the words say. The only legitimate way to change that is with another Constitutional Amendment.
I'm more concerned with trump going full neocon war hawk mode in the past few days, saying we are going to continue to fund Ukraine and shilling Lindsey Graham. This is a huge reversal of what Trump has promised us and how he's behaved in office previously and it's extremely concerning. The Epstein stuff is big but it's surprising that more people aren't criticizing this. It's directly 100% anti MAGA, it fundamentally goes against everything MAGA stands for and Trump voters are making excuses for it for some delusional reason.
