Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Draft Registration is hearsay? Selective Service Registration is hearsay? Since when?
Read the Federal Rules of Evidence. Unless it is in Theodore Agnew's own handwriting it is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." I.e. hearsay by definition.
So sorry to disappoint you.
But... if you've got that naturalization record, lets have it.
Do I need to post the Italian Consulate's citizenship application requiring extensive documentation again?
There is no such thing. There is an application for recognition of citizenship only. It says so... right on the form.
And of course, don't forget the UK application which Obama would have to submit.... asking for almost the identical extensive documentation as Italy. While you're at it, you might want to look at the US's too.
yes it is, they gave the power of Naturalization to Congress to enact their own citizenship laws, but they never gave the power to Congress to define who can be President, you concede this right?
Quote:
You have admitted that no oaths were taken.
It's a fact. This does not change anything regarding allegiance. Do you even know what the oath says? An oath is a verbal contract between the person and the Constitution. Congress has the power to make it implied or not make it verbal.
Quote:
But they do not have the power to take oaths for others.
They are not taking oaths for others, But they have the power to declare you a citizen with full allegiance to the US once you become Naturalized.
Quote:
That your argument regarding Humphrey's mother turned out to be bullsh*t.
I didnt bring this argument, regardless, why is this even a question, she was clearly a Naturalized U.S citizen at the time o Humphrey birth. If Mars also gave her citizenship, that's Mars issue, not the US. There is an astronomical difference between this case and Obama/ Rubio/Jindal's
Read the Federal Rules of Evidence. Unless it is in Theodore Agnew's own handwriting it is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." I.e. hearsay by definition.
So sorry to disappoint you.
Um... you didn't notice that the Census is NOT in Agnew's handwriting?
The Census info is hearsay by your own definition.
There is no such thing. There is an application for recognition of citizenship only. It says so... right on the form.
False. I already posted the Italian law YOU linked but neglected to read.
Quote:
Article 2
1.Recognition or judicial declaration of the filiation of a person while he or she is still a minor shall determine the person's citizenship in accordance with the provisions of the present Act.
2. If a person whose filiationis recognized or declared is of full age...
Anyone APPLYING for Italian citizenship must provide evidence ofvalidfiliation which then must be officially approved BEFORE they are granted the status of Italian citizen. It's NOT automatic.
I didnt bring this argument, regardless, why is this even a question, she was clearly a Naturalized U.S citizen at the time o Humphrey birth. If Mars also gave her citizenship, that's Mars issue, not the US. There is an astronomical difference between this case and Obama/ Rubio/Jindal's
They don't comprehend that. That's why they're still so confused on the issue.
It would help if they stopped posting the samedebunked assertions multiple times.
They don't comprehend that. That's why they're still so confused on the issue.
It would help if they stopped posting the samedebunked assertions multiple times.
The point is that foreign citizenship, dual citizenship, although legal, has no mandate over US Citizenship laws, therefore unless someone renounces US citizenship, it does not affect the provisions of loyalty and allegiance already established in the Naturalization laws and throughout the intent of the Constitution. If anyone finds this to be politically unethical one way or the other specially for the Presidency, it is meaningless since SCOTUS defined NBC in Minor as a person born in a country of citizen parents, period.
yes it is, they gave the power of Naturalization to Congress to enact their own citizenship laws, but they never gave the power to Congress to define who can be President, you concede this right?
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlqban
It's a fact. This does not change anything regarding allegiance. Do you even know what the oath says? An oath is a verbal contract between the person and the Constitution. Congress has the power to make it implied or not make it verbal.
How can there be a verbal contract between a person and an inanimate object? What you write here makes no sense at all. There is a reason we take oaths. They are the public assumption of a personal obligation. A person cannot testify in a court of law if someone else takes the oath for them. A person cannot be commissioned in the military if someone else takes the oath for them. And it is simply absurd to pretend that the Congress can assert someone is liable for the personal obligation of an oath they have never taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlqban
They are not taking oaths for others, But they have the power to declare you a citizen with full allegiance to the US once you become Naturalized.
But not the power to break your allegiances with other nations (or even our own nation) absent your personal volition. I refer you to the SCOTUS case that essentially established the legality of American Dual Citizenship; Afroyim v. Rusk. In it, the court established that Congress does not have the power to "divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." If they cannot divest a person of our own citizenship, how can they do so for the citizenship awarded by another nation?
Um... you didn't notice that the Census is NOT in Agnew's handwriting?
Census records are submitted by census takers under oath. Read again the FRE, specifically exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Census info is hearsay by your own definition.
Not true. "My definition" is the FRE. And under the FRE, the draft card is hearsay while the Census records are not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
