 |
|
||||||
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, together with Dr. John C. Eastman, Director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitution Jurisprudence filed an amicus curiae brief on March 29 urging the U.S. Supreme Court correct its overly broad and erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Eastman and Meese argue:
The current understanding of the Citizenship Clause is
incorrect, as a matter of text, historical practice, and political
theory. As an original matter, mere birth on U.S. soil was
insufficient to confer citizenship as a matter of constitutional
right. Rather, birth, together with being a person subject to
the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
(i.e., not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional
mandate, a floor for citizenship below which Congress
cannot go in the exercise of its Article I power over
naturalization.
The entire brief is available for download as a PDF file (requires Adobe Acrobat).
Many thanks to Chapman Law School student Karen Lugo for able research assistance on the project.
Go to:
- Claremont Institute Amicus Brief on the Merits (pdf)
- Wrong Question in Hamdi, by John C. Eastman
