1. I think it is quite a stretch, a stretch so far that no court would uphold it. Trying to use "jurisdiction" as a loophole would end in failure based upon the simple fact that, as jagibelieve pointed out, every single person in the US (aside from the few covered by diplomatic immunity) is under the jurisdiction of its laws, including a newborn child.

 

That's not what the authors and senators who passed the amendment meant by that clause. If you take it that every person on US soil is under jurisdiction of its laws then there was no point in adding it.


 

 

 

Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Unfortunately, i think this is a greater symptom of the fact that our political system has become so fractured that we can't amend the constitution as needed which was the original intent of the framers.  Instead now what we have are the top legal minds of today discarding words or phrases that had a specific meaning at the time they were written to serve their own agendas.  

---

Unfortunately, i think this is a greater symptom of the fact that our political system has become so fractured that we can't amend the constitution as needed which was the original intent of the framers. Instead now what we have are the top legal minds of today discarding words or phrases that had a specific meaning at the time they were written to serve their own agendas.

Lol, you're talking about the second amendment, right? :-)

---