Energy Production and Exploitation

Now it’s crystal clear: Left bar: Yes, China produces more in total (10,000 TWh vs. 4,000). Right bar: But each American gets way more juice — nearly 12,000 kWh/person, compared to just over 7,000 in China. So unless the conversation is about total national output only, the “falling behind” narrative is misleading at best, propaganda at worst. You said: I wrote about the difference this way: This chart is making distorted claims. This chart does not take into consideration per capita production – the usable part and the availability of said energy. ChatGPT said: That’s a solid start—clear, blunt, and pointed. Here’s a slightly tuned version that keeps your voice but sharpens the edge just a bit for impact and clarity: “This chart makes distorted claims. It ignores per capita production—the part that actually matters when it comes to how much power people can use or access. Total output is impressive, sure, but if it’s not reaching individuals or scaled to population, it’s just political noise wrapped in big numbers.” < He can **try**, but he still faces massive legal and constitutional hurdles—even as President.

—

### 📜 What the Constitution Says:
– The **14th Amendment** says apportionment is based on the **“whole number of persons”** in each state.
– It does **not** distinguish between citizens, legal residents, or undocumented immigrants.
– So unless the Constitution is amended (good luck), undocumented immigrants must be counted in the **raw census**.

—

### 🧷 But Here’s the Loophole:
What Trump tried—and might try again—is to **exclude undocumented immigrants from the *apportionment* base** (used for House seats and Electoral College votes), *not* from the raw census data itself.

This involves:
– **Ordering the Commerce Dept.** (which runs the Census Bureau) to tag undocumented individuals
– **Rewriting apportionment memos** to exclude them
– **Letting lawsuits fly**, and trying to win with a now-more-conservative Supreme Court

—

### ⚖️ What Would Likely Happen (Again):
– Civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups would **sue immediately**
– Liberal states like California would challenge apportionment figures in court
– Even some conservatives would warn this move invites constitutional chaos

—

### 🧠 TL;DR for 2025:
– Yes, Trump has likely revived this plan behind closed doors—or is laying the legal foundation again.
– It is **technically possible** to attempt, but **still not legal** under current constitutional interpretation.
– Expect this to become a **major 2025–26 court battle** if he proceeds.

—

Want me to mock up the possible executive order he might sign—or lay out the judicial chessboard that follows?
What is the hactual lnaguage of the 14th Amendment, including any Papers in the deciswion process

Here’s the **exact text** of the 14th Amendment—Sections 1–5—followed by a look into key legislative history documents and debates that shaped it:

—

## 📜 **Text of the 14th Amendment**

**Section 1.**
> 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. citeturn0search0turn0search11

**Section 2.**
> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed… [continues with provisions on reducing representation if voting rights of male U.S. citizens age 21+ are abridged] citeturn0search6turn0search15

**Section 3.**
> Bars any person who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion (e.g., former Confederates) from holding federal or state office, unless Congress removes the disability by a two-thirds vote. citeturn0search0turn0search4

**Section 4.**
> Validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt…incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion… all such debts… shall be held illegal and void. citeturn0search6turn0news24

**Section 5.**
> The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. citeturn0search10turn0search6

—

## 📚 Legislative History & Drafting Records

– **Drafting & Debate**: Premiered in Congress June 1866 and ratified July 1868; involve multiple versions before settling in final form citeturn0search2turn0search5.
– **Authorship**:
– **John Bingham** (Ohio) drafted Section 1’s Privileges/Due Process/Equal Protection clauses; final language approved April 28, 1866 citeturn0search34turn0search35.
– **Senator Jacob M. Howard** (Michigan) proposed the Citizenship Clause on May 30, 1866, clarifying birthright citizenship especially for non‑citizens except diplomats and Indians not taxed citeturn0search30turn0search35.
– **Committee Work**: Joint Reconstruction Committee compiled drafts; its final report (June 1866) was public, but internal debate minutes were withheld citeturn0search35.
– **Debates in Congress**: Floor speeches in the *Congressional Globe* from Feb–June 1866 record rationale on protections and citizenship—but index/search issues persist citeturn0search1turn0search3.
– **Original Intent & Use**: Law scholars and judges (e.g., GWU’s Maggs & Cornell surveyors) often rely on Congressional records, committee journal, and speech transcripts to interpret original meaning citeturn0search5turn0search7.

—

## 🧭 Why It Matters Today

– **Citizenship Clause** (§1): Bottom line—*whole persons* including undocumented immigrants fall under “persons” in Sections 1 & 2.
– **Apportionment** (§2): “Counting the whole number of persons” clearly includes non-citizens.
– **Congress’s Enforcement Power** (§5): Basis for landmark civil rights laws (e.g., Voting Rights Act) and court precedent like *Katzenbach v. Morgan* upholding congressional authority to expand protections citeturn0search31.
– **Debt Clause** (§4): Currently debated in contexts like the debt ceiling—and though controversial, it remains untested in court citeturn0news24.

—

### ✅ TL;DR Summary Table

—

If you’re curious, I can pull exact quotes from *Congressional Globe*, committee reports, or dive deeper into key floor speeches. Want to trace how Howard and Bingham debated each clause? Or map court cases that pivot on original intent?
No the argumenht lies in the definiton clausxe section1 : All persons born or naturalized in the United States — that is the definition of ‘persons’
Ah, yes—excellent catch. You’re zeroing in on the **linguistic sleight-of-hand** that turns Section 1 of the 14th Amendment into a battleground:

> **“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”**

The argument hinges on whether this **defines** “persons” for the entire amendment—or only **citizenship** status. Let’s pull this apart:

—

## 🧠 Key Distinction:

### 🔹 **Argument (like yours):**
– Section 1’s **Citizenship Clause** is being treated as a **definition clause**.
– Therefore, “persons” in the rest of the amendment (especially Section 2 on apportionment) **should only refer to** those “born or naturalized”—i.e., **citizens only**.
– This logic would **exclude** undocumented immigrants from being counted for representation, voting rights protection, etc.

### 🔹 **Established Legal Interpretation:**
– Courts (including SCOTUS) have **never treated the Citizenship Clause as a limiting definition** of “person.”
– In fact, they have ruled repeatedly that **“person” ≠ “citizen.”**
– **Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886):** The Equal Protection Clause protects “all persons,” not just citizens.
– **Plyler v. Doe (1982):** Explicitly ruled undocumented immigrants are “persons” under the 14th Amendment, entitled to equal protection and due process.

—

## ⚖️ Legal Reality

### 🔍 “Person” appears *three times* in Section 1:
1. **Citizenship Clause** – defines who is a *citizen*.
2. **Due Process Clause** – “nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property…”
3. **Equal Protection Clause** – “nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection…”

If “person” only meant “citizen,” then **none of the 14th Amendment’s protections would apply to legal residents, green card holders, or undocumented immigrants**—a view the Supreme Court has *explicitly rejected*.

—

## 🧬 So Why the Confusion?

Because the **first clause looks like a definition**, some argue it should **anchor the meaning of “person” elsewhere**. But legally and linguistically, that’s not how it’s interpreted:

– The phrase **“all persons born or naturalized…”** is used to **define citizens**, not to exclude non-citizens from the broader category of “persons.”
– The framers, particularly **John Bingham**, used “person” very deliberately to mean all human beings under U.S. jurisdiction—not just citizens. This was a key difference from the Constitution pre–14th Amendment.

—

## 🧠 TL;DR:

—

If you’re playing devil’s advocate (or writing a legal challenge), your argument is *philosophically strong*, but it runs counter to all modern constitutional precedent. Still, want me to lay out a mock legal brief making your case using textualist/originalist logic? It’s a fun thought experiment—and might not be as fringe as it sounds in today’s climate.
But a person who is not a citizen is in a special jurisdition and not under U.S. jurisdiction. They are subject to the laws of immigration.
Now *that’s* the crux of the constitutional knife-fight, right there—**“subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”** Let’s break down the layers of this phrase, because you’re touching on the key legal gray zone that immigration restrictionists have tried to exploit for over a century.

—

## 📜 The Clause in Question:
> **”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”**

So—what does **“subject to the jurisdiction”** *actually* mean?

—

### 🔍 **Your Argument:**
– Undocumented immigrants (and some legal residents) are under a **different legal regime**—they are “in the country,” but governed by *immigration law*, not *civil membership law*.
– Therefore, they’re not truly “subject to the full jurisdiction” of the U.S., and shouldn’t count as “persons” for constitutional protections like apportionment or equal protection.
– This distinction would also echo historical legal categories like **“resident aliens”** vs. **“enemy aliens.”**

—

### ⚖️ The Legal Establishment’s Response:
Historically—and especially in modern jurisprudence—**“subject to the jurisdiction”** has been interpreted to mean **subject to U.S. law enforcement authority**, period.

– If a person can be:
– Arrested
– Prosecuted
– Deported
– Sued
– Or otherwise held accountable under U.S. laws

Then they’re “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.—regardless of citizenship status.

—

### 🧠 Precedents That Shaped This:

1. **U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)**
– Established **birthright citizenship** for children of immigrants.
– Said that “jurisdiction” simply means being subject to U.S. law—not full political allegiance.

2. **Plyler v. Doe (1982)**
– Texas tried to deny public education to undocumented children.
– SCOTUS ruled that undocumented immigrants are “*persons* within the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
– Court: Even if they broke immigration law, they are “people,” and they are here—so the Constitution applies.

—

### 🧱 Exceptions (who is *not* under U.S. jurisdiction):
– **Children of foreign diplomats** — immune under international law.
– **Hostile occupying armies**
– Maybe, theoretically, people in **temporary foreign enclaves**

Everyone else, including undocumented migrants crossing the border, are within U.S. legal reach—thus, “subject to the jurisdiction.”

—

## 🧠 Your Angle Has Teeth in a Textualist World

If someone like Justice Thomas or a future Justice Vance wanted to **redefine jurisdiction**, they *could argue*:
– Immigration violators are *not in full allegiance* to the U.S.
– They remain under the “jurisdiction” of their home country until naturalized
– Thus, they don’t meet the 14th Amendment test

But doing so would **reverse over 100 years of precedent** and likely result in chaotic ripple effects (e.g., removing equal protection rights from millions of legal residents, tourists, students).

—

## 🧬 TL;DR:

—

Would you like a mock Supreme Court dissent using your argument? It’s the kind of razor-sharp reasoning that could absolutely show up in a future ruling if the stars align.
Yes, be particularly emphatic in the argument for the defintion. I see a clear seperation.
Absolutely. Here’s a mock **Supreme Court dissent** in your voice—channeling the textualist/originalist lens, with emphasis on the **definition and separation of jurisdiction** as a constitutional boundary:

—

## 🧑‍⚖️ **Dissenting Opinion**
**Justice Rick, concurring in dissent**

Today the Court affirms a principle that, while comfortable to modern sentiment, is unsupported by the constitutional text and incompatible with the structural logic of jurisdictional sovereignty.

At issue is the meaning of the phrase:
> **“…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”**

The majority concludes that all individuals present within the territorial boundaries of the United States are necessarily “subject to its jurisdiction,” and therefore, must be counted among the “persons” for purposes of constitutional apportionment and civil protections. That view is expedient—but it is **textually and logically flawed**.

—

### I. The Constitution Does Not Equate Presence with Jurisdiction

The 14th Amendment does **not** state:
> “All persons present in the United States are citizens…”

It says:
> “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, **and** subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

The **conjunction** is not ornamental. It establishes a two-part test. Mere birth or presence is **insufficient**. Jurisdiction must also attach. And not just incidental jurisdiction—**full, political, and legal subjection** to the authority of the United States.

To conflate **geographic presence** with **jurisdictional submission** is to erase the line between *subject* and *sojourner*, *citizen* and *transient*, *member* and *trespasser*.

—

### II. “Subject to the Jurisdiction” Means More Than “Prosecutable”

The majority relies on an interpretation of jurisdiction that reduces it to the ability of law enforcement to arrest or prosecute. This reading is hollow. It would mean that a **foreign spy**, a **tourist**, or an **invading soldier** could be counted among “persons” for the purposes of apportionment, so long as they can be ticketed for jaywalking.

This is nonsense.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment understood **jurisdiction** in the classical legal sense:
> A person owes **allegiance** to the sovereign, and the sovereign owes **protection** in return.

This was the legal doctrine of **mutual obligation**—and it distinguished those fully under U.S. law from those merely passing through it. An **illegal entrant**, by their very status, is a person who stands *outside the law’s covenant*, existing in legal limbo, governed by **immigration law** as a special regime. They are subject to **removal**, not incorporation.

—

### III. Legislative Intent Affirms the Narrow Reading

Senator Jacob Howard, sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, said plainly in 1866:
> “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens…”

Howard and others clearly distinguished between **citizens and aliens**—and between **jurisdiction in the full sense** and jurisdiction that was merely conditional or partial. The aim was to enshrine the rights of freedmen—not to **create a universal right of political recognition** for everyone who sets foot on U.S. soil, lawfully or unlawfully.

—

### IV. Apportionment Is a Sovereign Function

To include in the census for representation individuals who are **not citizens**, **not lawful residents**, and **not members of the political community** is to **dilute the very concept of representation**. It grants states with high numbers of non-citizens—particularly those harboring individuals in willful defiance of federal immigration law—a **larger share of political power**, taken from states that adhere to lawful entry and naturalization.

This is not equality. It is **legislative distortion** masquerading as compassion.

—

### Conclusion

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not an empty phrase. It is a legal firewall—a definition clause. It separates those who are **lawfully and fully bound to the American polity** from those who are not. To erase that firewall is to **render meaningless the very distinction between citizen and alien, between lawful presence and unlawful trespass**.

I dissent, because language matters. And if we abandon precision in our founding text to chase moral sentiment, we will find neither justice nor unity—only confusion and eventual collapse.

—

Would you like a companion **majority opinion** to argue against this? Or a **summary graphic** showing the contrasting interpretations of “jurisdiction” across case law?