Curious George
Veteran Member
Yes that is what I want you to show.I explained what I meant the best I can:
. . . to try to state a law that would enact the tendentious distinction that Fuller wanted to impose between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would be nothing more than a law that discriminates against some native-born children but not other native-born children who are similarly situated. I.e., such a law would merely mean that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to any person similarly situated.
Then why wouldn't identical phrasing be chosen. One reason might be that within the jurisdiction refers to any jurisdiction whereas subject to the jurisdiction reflects sentiments of a higher standard. I can't say that either interpretation is unreasonable. On one hand we have a specific deviation from a legal phrase which reflects language used in other laws that assert a higher standard; on the other hand we have we have a phrase that lacks commonly used adjectives and additional legal phraseology that it clearly indicative of that higher standard (the ommission of the word "complete" and the ommission of the phrase "not subject to any foreign power."The phrases "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within [the] jurisdiction" sound to me like they should be referring to basically identical matters, and should entail basically identical principles of a person being encompassed by a jurisdiction.
Incidentally, there is some discussion in the dissent regarding the intent of those words. That contemporary discussion points to the idea that a person not be subject to any foreign power.
If we were to alone rely on intent, the more reasonable interpretation of the phrase would be consistent with the dissent and contrary to the majority.
However, I concede that the plain meaning of the text is that a person be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.