Comments on: Citizens, not subjects

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:32:29 +0000

You’re right, of course; sorry about that. I didn’t carry through my thinking, and got side-tracked into something else. My position still stands, however, regarding “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. (or any country).

By: Philalethes

Philalethes — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 01:48:35 +0000

Pat: Actually, in the 14th Amendment, “subject” is an adjective, describing those to whom it is applied, i.e. “all persons born….” And the 14th Amendment was not written by the Founders; it was the post-”Civil” War measure that cemented in place what that war had accomplished: converting the previously sovereign American citizen into a subject of the now-supreme unitary national state, formerly the federal government. In other words, it reinstated the very relationship which Jefferson had tried so hard to “obliterate”, less than a century later, thus essentially ending the American experiment in republican self-government, despite lingering appearances.

See: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=subject

Like the lady said, “We did the reverse morphing back to ‘subjects.’ “

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:36:30 +0000

Not at all; that only describes what I’d like to be (as opposed to property-of-the-government, which is how we’re now treated — and that ISN’T a euphemism, it’s a fact!). As for what I am, I’ll settle for: free woman, individualist — or just Pat.
~~~~~

Re: the 14th Amendment terminology: There, the word “subject” is a verb, whereas citizen/“subject” is a noun — and I recognize the difference in usage as the Constitution was written. However I think it’s safe to assume the meaning of the words (v. vs n.) comes from the same root, the root that places one authority over another — or in the case of a nation, one authority over all others.

I object to the verb as it’s applied in the 14th Amendment, since I do not consider ourselves subject to any jurisdiction. We are individuals who happen to have been born, and now live, in a given jurisdiction; that incident of birth should impose no *automatic* subjection over anyone.

In all things American-revolutionary, we have to remember that the Founders were still trying to set up a *nation* (Republic or otherwise), on a par with other nations at that time. In doing so, they might well have misinterpreted or forgotten how individuals *or* “authorities” should best relate to each other. Even the Founders were not omniscient.