What does "jurisdiction" mean in the 14th Amendment?

This is what the people who wrote it meant:


The 14 Amendment’s citizenship clause was authored by Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, who clarified its meaning on the floor of the Senate in 1866: This post was edited by my2cents at November 1, 2018 4:40 PM MDT

not sure

OK Walt, I'll bite. Who is claiming that it never came before the Supreme Court?

Let's back up and define the 13th Amendment first.  

You know, what Trump and his buddy think the 13th Amendment means versus reality.


Let's start there.

You take a black poser who looks like a Minstrel tap dancer, loudly proclaiming his love for Trump while telling the world he is off his meds and you got another desperate sycophant begging for help from anyone.

Trump could not help him if he tried.  He is way more out of touch with reality than his tap dancing Uncle Tom who can't tell the world enough times how much he loves Donald Trump.

This is such an obvious ploy for help.  When a child is crying over and over again things that equate to an emotional breakdown and the person who is enabling him is sicker than he is, that is known as a toxic co-dependency.

The sad thing is, Kanye will be a forgotten footnote and a joke and Trump will keep bouncing back.  He will be impeached and he still has enough politicians and crooks in his pocket that he will do damage for decades to come.  I know he is on his last cellulite covered legs, but he has KIDS that are even sicker and more evil than he is.

Evil is not deliberate action, evil is not caring when someone is starving in front of you and you walk right over them.  

Or in the case of Charlottesville, DRIVE over them. 

Hello there Walt
I am just going to paste my answer to Rosie's question, which I believe you may be referencing here...

..."It will come as no surprise to you that I agree with the President on this, however I do not believe his intention is to "rescind" that part of the 14th amendment, but rather restore the intention of the 14th amendment. 
The 14th amendment is part of the "reconstruction amendments", (13th, 14th and 15th amendments.) These amendments were to insure the newly freed slaves were to be considered citizens of the United States and that no state could violate this. 
The 13th amendment abolished slavery, but didnt make clear the legal status of the former slaves, they were at that free but what rights did they have, and what about that ol' 3/5th thing? thus the 14th amendment..granting full citizenship to the former slaves and their children, thus basically overturning the 3/5th compromise of the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision which held that No person of African ancestry  could be a citizen. the 15th guaranteed the right to vote.
The 14th amendment says that any person born or naturalized in the U.S.and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. 
Had the intention been to confer citizenship to anyone simply born in the U.S, there would have been no need to qualify it  "and being Subject to the jurisdiction thereof". this means NOT being subject to another jurisdiction, they make this distinction later in the amendment that people "Within" the jurisdiction are still entitled to due process. they make the distinction between being "subject to" and being "within" a jurisdiction.
The courts have upheld this idea in several key cases. I cant remember the exact names  Slaughter ??? held that tthe qualification of "jurisdiction" in the amendment was intended to exclude "children of citizens or subjects of foreign states born in the U.S".  This was confirmed in a later case with dealt with the citizenship of Indians, the court held that indians and their children could not be citizens because they held allegiance to  different jurisdiction, their Tribe..this was later overturned in the Indian Citizen Act of 19??. Again if citizenship was guaranteed to anyone simply for being born here, that act  would not have been necessary.

There is no law or statute or legislative act that confers citizenship to children of aliens, other than that which just repeats the text of the 14th amendment. The idea of birthright citizenship that includes everyone without regard to their "jurisdiction" is the result of not enforcing the actual text and precedent. 
I believe in this the case the President does have the constitutional executive authority to instruct his agencies to begin to deny visa's and S.S.N. numbers to the children of illegal aliens..until of course challenged in court or overturned with actual legislation.."

In Wong Kim, he was born to parents who were "legally domiciled and resident of San Francisco, having established a business and not working for the chinese gov...."

I do think from what I read that Trump is right on the intent of the Amendment but I do think Congress should be the ones to bring this out and then the Supreme Court can interpret that Amendment.  Not a law change just an intent of what it says.