Misreading the Constitution

We Americans have a tradition of long-standing, going back at least to 1803, of misreading the Constitution ... even as we pretend to revere it. The particular misreading I wish at this time to bring to Gentle Reader's attention is the stubborn and persistent misreading of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: for many of our current "immigration" problems -- which is to say, the fact that we are being invaded and that our rulers are aiding and abetting this invasion -- are rooted in this misreading.

Here is the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment -- "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."

Of late, in explaining how the "anchor baby" phenomenon came about and attempting to explain to Americans that the Constitution does not require us to attribute citizenship to the offspring of foreigners just because they happen to be born on American soil, several commentators have focused on the subordinate clause of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment ... all the while overlooking the verb.

I call to Gentle Reader's attention the precise wording of the first sentence as compared to the second (and subsequent, here unquoted) sentences.

The first sentence declares that a certain class of person -- previously denied to be citizens -- are citizens of the US, and of the state in which they reside. That is, the effect of this sentence was a one-time deal -- it applied only to certain persons then living, and it does not apply to anyone now living.

In contrast, the second sentence (and subsequent, unquoted sentences) is ongoing -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."

The purpose of the first sentence of the 14th Amendemtn was to explicitly overturn and repudiate the Dread Scott decision and to incorporate this repudiation into the Constiturion itself (*); it was not to redefine what 'citizen' means.

The first sentence does not say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first sentence is not on-going, as the second is.

(*) Congress actually has the authority to overturn most recisions of the federal courts by mere legislation -- for instance, Congress could invalidate both the Roe v Wade and the Obergefell rulings tomorrow, were the congresscritter so minded, and there is nothing the supreme Court could do except to say, "Yes, sir!"

More on Black-on-black Slavery in the Old South

AmericanCivilWar.com: DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT - BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

Development of Race-slavery in America

Did Gentle Reader know that from 1607, when Virginia was founded, until 1655, there were no slaves, black or white, in America? Did Gentle Reader know that the first person in colonial America to legally "own" another person as a slave was
a black man? Did Gentle Reader know that it was not until 1670 that whites in colonial America were awarded the legal "right" to "own" blacks as slaves -- between 1655 and 1670, only blacks could "own" other blacks as slaves. Did Gentle Reader know that the legal logic by which that first black slave-owner was enabled to legally "own" another black man as a slave was later the same legal logic by which blacks, in general, were not recognized as subjects/citizens in American society, but rather were accounted as aliens ... starting with that man's own children?

Did Gentle Reader know that the Stuart Restoration (absolute) monarchs, Charles II and James II, had an important hand in fostering slavery in America? Did Gentle Reader know that Thomas Jefferson's calumnies against George III, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, concerning the King's alleged fostering of slavery weren't total lies (as I myself had long believed until today).

I call Gentle Reader's attention to this post by Beastrabban -- and the comments and linked articles -- John Locke and the Origins of British and American Democracy A Reply to Ilion


edit:
(h/t to Katht Shaidle) Today I Found Out
The First Legal Slave Owner in What Would Become the United States was a Black Man -- there are some differences between the information he and I present. For example, he says, "About 7 years later [after Anthony Johnson's court-approved-and-ordered enslavement of John Casor], Virginia made this practice legal for everyone, in 1661, by making it state law for any free white, black, or Indian, to be able to own slaves, ..." whereas the information I'd found says that legislation was in 1670.