President. that is no reason to do violence to the Constitution. The mere fact that we believe we can devise a way to depart from the Constitution and not have our action overturned is not or should not be an inducement to take the step. The Senator from Kentucky has referred to two arguments made in the Chanmber at the other end of the Capitol in support of the proposition that the word "persons" as used in the four teenth amendment to the Constitution means "citizens" and does not include noncitizens or aliens. I have read each of -those arguments with a great deal of interest. but after mature reflection I am unable to bring my views into accord with those expressed by the distinguished Members of the other body of the Congress. for each of whom I entertain the most profound respect. It is true that the word " persons " appears in the Constitution many. different times .and perhaps requires different interpretations. thus meaning that in determining our views upon this provision we should consider the*interpretation to be given to it as it is in the fourteenth amendment separated and apart from other provisions of the document. It is my opinion that the word "persons" as used in this particular amendment is defined in the first sentence of the amendmnent. It is in this language: 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. The word "persons" is clearly defined. it is clearly limited by the language following it. It means those "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." "Persons" within the United States who were not born here or naturalized here or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are "persons" but not "citizens" of the United States. Clearly the word "persons" Is defined in the very first sentence of the section by limiting its inclusion in those individuals who were born here or naturalized here. That view. in my opinion. needs no corroboration or substantiation. but the subsequent language in the section carries forward the thought that there is a distinction. indeed a welldefined distinction. between the two words "persons" and "citizens." After having defined the word "persons "-that Is to say. after having limited it to include only those who were born or naturalized here. and in one or the other of those two ways subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States to the exclusion of all other powersthe constitutional provision continues: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.* There the Constitution is dealing with the guaranties and the protection accorded to citizens of the United States as previously defined in the section. As to citizens. the provision accords a certain degree of protection and guaranty. namely. that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities to which they are entitled. A different standard is set up by the provision with reference to others. namely. those who are not citizens of the United States--aliens.
Keywords matched
noncitizens naturalized