By: Joel Stephen Mattson
When the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it introduces one of the most misunderstood — and most manipulated — legal clauses in American history.
Most people assume “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means being within the geographic boundaries of the United States. That’s false. The legal and constitutional record shows beyond a doubt that jurisdiction means political allegiance and consent, not mere physical location.
This article breaks that down and closes every loophole the system might try to argue. Let’s dissect it from the Constitution itself, case law, congressional debates, legal dictionaries, and how this is applied in modern legal traps.
The 14th Amendment Requires Both Birth AND Jurisdiction
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”
This means birth alone is not sufficient. You must also be subject to the jurisdiction — a requirement based on legal allegiance, not geography.
Supreme Court Case Law That Proves Jurisdiction = Allegiance
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
A Native American born in the U.S. was not considered a citizen because he was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. — he owed allegiance to his tribe.
Key point: Even though he was born on U.S. soil, he was not under U.S. jurisdiction.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Even in affirming birthright citizenship for children of legal immigrants, the Court recognized that children of foreign diplomats, enemy soldiers, and tribal natives were not citizens, because they were not subject to full jurisdiction.
Congressional Record: Original Intent of the 14th Amendment
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the Amendment, stated in 1866:
“This amendment… will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…”
Meaning: Being born here doesn’t make you a citizen unless you also owe political allegiance to the U.S. — not to another sovereign, including a State republic.
Black’s Law Dictionary – Definitions of Jurisdiction
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., ‘Jurisdiction’:
“A term of comprehensive import. It includes jurisdiction over the person (in personam), over the subject matter (subject matter jurisdiction), and to render the particular judgment (territorial jurisdiction).”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., ‘Subject to the jurisdiction’:
“The phrase means ‘subject to the laws,’ but more specifically it means complete and exclusive political jurisdiction, as opposed to mere territorial or partial jurisdiction.”
Legal Meaning of ‘Allegiance’ and Jurisdiction
Allegiance is defined in legal terms as:
“The duty of loyalty and obedience which a subject owes to his sovereign or government.”
If you are a State National who has not consented to U.S. corporate jurisdiction, you are not under exclusive federal allegiance — and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction.
Presumed Consent Is the Game
You’re assumed to be subject to jurisdiction by your:
- Social Security registration
- Voter registration
- Driver’s license
- IRS compliance
- Birth certificate
These contracts are presumed proof of consent — unless lawfully rebutted.
Legal Maxim: “Silence is acquiescence.”
What About the 50 States? Are They Under U.S. Jurisdiction?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction:
“over such District (not exceeding ten miles square)… and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state…”
Meaning: The federal government only has jurisdiction where States cede land — like Washington D.C., military bases, and federal territories.
If you live in the Republic of Texas, not the “State of Texas” corporate overlay, you are not under federal territorial jurisdiction — unless you contract into it.
Why ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction’ = Legal Trap
It is the backdoor used to convert:
- State Nationals → into → 14th Amendment Citizens
- Living men/women → into → Corporate franchises
Once you accept that label, you are governed by federal administrative code, not constitutional law.
Court Cases That Reinforce the Trap
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“There is in our political system a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own.”
Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910 (W.D. Va. 1918)
The 14th Amendment created a new form of citizenship distinct from that of the States.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Citizenship is voluntary, and the government cannot force it upon you.
How to Lawfully Rebut ‘Jurisdiction’
- File an Affidavit of Political Status
- Record a Revocation of Election with the IRS and local agencies
- Serve a Notice of Status to the Secretary of State
- Record a Certificate of Assumed Name
- Make your withdrawal public record
Once that’s done, any attempt to assert jurisdiction must be backed by:
- A lawful contract
- Signed consent
- Or valid territorial authority
Without that, any claim of jurisdiction is void on its face.
Conclusion: Jurisdiction Is About Consent, Not Soil
Don’t fall for the trap. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a legal test — one that requires voluntary allegiance. And allegiance is only valid when freely given, not presumed by silence or fraud.
If you never consented — or if you lawfully revoked that consent — you are not subject to federal jurisdiction. And that destroys the entire foundation of 14th Amendment citizenship being forced on you.
Next Article in the Series: How Contracts and Registration Trap You Into U.S. Jurisdiction
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page