Robert Ginsberg

@The_Real_Joey_B @Foff777778 @marklevinshow A double negative does not indicate a positive here, “no intention not to” doesn’t equate to “they intended to…”

@Foff777778 @Prof__G @marklevinshow You need to admit there's no intention not to grant citizenship to children of non-citizens.

My opening statement tonight on Life, Liberty & Levin foxnews.com/video/63926261…

@The_Real_Joey_B @Foff777778 @marklevinshow Always happy to learn… could you tell me where to find that?

@Prof__G @Foff777778 @marklevinshow Have you read the entire Senate debate? The concerns with Indians had nothing to do with allegiance.

@The_Real_Joey_B @Foff777778 @marklevinshow To clarify what I’m saying, without b), a) would not obviously make Indians an exception because they did not have immunity, just modified jurisdiction, so only the allegiance concept clearly makes them an exception.

@Prof__G @Foff777778 @marklevinshow Indians had reservations where they policed and had separate nation status. They gained birthright, later, through legislation. B is irrelevant, unless you have diplomatic immunity.

@The_Real_Joey_B @Foff777778 @marklevinshow Indians were not fully subject to federal laws, but were partially subject to them, so if the measure was purely about a), it would have easily been expressed by inserting “fully” before subject to, otherwise it’s ambiguous with respect to Indians… but not ambiguous if b). See?

@The_Real_Joey_B @Foff777778 @marklevinshow in 1868, subject to jurisdiction LIKELY meant a) the US’ laws applied to you & b) that you did not have political allegiance elsewhere. Howard’s explanation to congress re: 14th: exceptions being diplomats & Indians leans towards a) but falls short as Indians were subject to law

@The_Real_Joey_B @marklevinshow Ok, so what does it mean? And how do you suppprt what you think it means?

@Prof__G @marklevinshow It's not ambiguous and it's easy to interpret.

@ElonMusk_LordX 99 and 67