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.
They know what the words "necessarily" and "and" mean. You don't.
Sure, I do. That's why Congress HASN'T been able to pass a Bill stating your and HD's erroneous belief...
"Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is- `(1) a citizen or national of the United States?"
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion, *namely*, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Let's break that down for you. Again. I know that you are neither smart enough nor honest enough to follow along, but it will provide the rest of us another opportunity to be entertained at your expense.
These are the facts of the case as represented in that final ruling:
1. "(C)hild born in the United States"
2. "of parents of Chinese descent."
3. "who at the the time of his birth are:
a. "subjects of the Emperor of China, but"
b. "have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and."
c. "are carrying on business, and"
d. "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China."
Now... some of those facts are relevant to the ruling, and some of them are not. For example, no one but a blithering idiot would suggest that the ruling requires natural-born citizens to have "parents of Chinese Descent" (Fact #2) or who were "subjects of the Emperor of China." (Fact #3a). Common sense (and the demonstrated operation of law) would also extend the ruling to children of parents of German descent, or English descent.
QED: The mere mention of one of the facts of the case does not mean it is a requirement of the ruling.
How then do smart people tell which facts are relevant and which are not? Surprise, surprise, the ratio decidendi of the ruling makes all of that explicitly and abundantly clear. It tells us (repeatedly) that domicile is irrelevant, while place of birth is not. It tells us that ethnicity of the parents is not relevant, but diplomatic status is. This is th reason why the Wong Kim Ark decision remains the only decision in SCOTUS history that has ever been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.
So again, here are the facts of the case, and highlighted in red are the ones that are relevant to the acquisition of natural born citizenship.
1. "(C)hild born in the United States"
2. "of parents of Chinese descent."
3. "who at the the time of his birth are:
a. "subjects of the Emperor of China, but"
b. "have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and."
c. "are carrying on business, and" d. "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China."
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 06-22-2013 at 03:05 PM..
Sure, I do. That's why Congress HASN'T been able to pass a Bill stating your and HD's erroneous belief...
"Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is- `(1) a citizen or national of the United States?"
You do realize that those are laws designed to deny birthright citizenship to anchor babies, right? You must, otherwise you would not have so dishonestly edited and cherry picked what you chose to post.
Once again you provide links that disprove your own position. You are a goddamned prodigy of nature.
Sovereign citizin bull****. None of which has anything to do with law, history or reality.
I agree that there is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen."
Citizens are subjects, by definition.
However, the law is clear. Americans have the potential to be sovereigns, until they surrender that prerogative.
As to law, consider these few citations:
People are supreme, not the state.
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government) - One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Non-legal reference:
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.
You're connecting things together randomly to prove a point that has nothing to do with this thread or even what this thread as developed in to. You mention the Constitution only when it pleases you and not for your primary points.
If a dog is an animal then it goes to show that a dog is a cat.
Your lack of comprehension does not mean that the point does not exist.
A subject of a foreign sovereign is an unacceptable public servant in the American government... unless that government is a subject of a foreign power as well.
You might inquire as to the reason for the "State of Emergency" declared in 1933, and to whom the U.S. government is indebted to.
Your lack of comprehension does not mean that the point does not exist.
A subject of a foreign sovereign is an unacceptable public servant in the American government... unless that government is a subject of a foreign power as well.
You might inquire as to the reason for the "State of Emergency" declared in 1933, and to whom the U.S. government is indebted to.
I don't need to read anymore nutcases tonight. If all you can do is attack me then you've proven you can't argue on the facts.
This is entirely too bad since there is a line above I agree with you and would love to discuss it further.
The president of the United States of America has to be loyal to the USA only. It is right there in the constitution, unless that has changed recently too.
please keep your replies in the forum for all to see. to my request that you cite where in the US constitution it states that a POTUS "has to be loyal to the USA only" you sent this response in a reputation comment:
"I read it in the constitution. You can too. NCN"
no! i can't because it isn't there! if you believe you are correct then please cite the passage from the US constitution.
please keep your replies in the forum for all to see. to my request that you cite where in the US constitution it states that a POTUS "has to be loyal to the USA only" you sent this response in a reputation comment:
"I read it in the constitution. You can too. NCN"
no! i can't because it isn't there! if you believe you are correct then please cite the passage from the US constitution.
It is in the section that shows the requirements for becoming the president of the United States. I don't believe I am correct. I know I am correct because I know how to read. Evidently you don't. I have done lots of homework for many students when I was working. I refuse to do yours. Do it yourself. It's late.
It is in the section that shows the requirements for becoming the president of the United States. I don't believe I am correct. I know I am correct because I know how to read. Evidently you don't. I have done lots of homework for many students when I was working. I refuse to do yours. Do it yourself. It's late.
please point it out:
Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It's in the Happiness Clause.
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.
