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.
birther report is posting today a WND article on how the maricopa county cold case posse has "New Earth-Shattering Developments [that] Will Soon Be Announced".
only one problem...... the article is from 2 months ago. no new "earth shattering developments" from the MCCCP yet ( but the article does say they need more money with a link to donate ).
Yes, it's always amazed me how Informed Consent has distilled the 40+ page opinion of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark into a restatement of the initial question and the three word answer 'in the affirmative'.
Gray specifically reiterated the question asked of the court when he stated the ruling. Question asked and answered by the court. It's a legal tenet. Examples:
Gray made sure everyone knew exactly the question asked and answered. In fact, there are no less than 3 main reiterations of the question before the court:
"The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco"
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"
"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."
There is no wiggling out of that. Gray explicitly states that "the question presented by the record" and "the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties"includes the condition that alien parents have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child(ren)'s U.S. birth in order for their child(ren) to acquire birthright citizenship.
Not surprising, though...one of your core beliefs is being challenged.
So your opinion must be taken as fact and all other opinions, like from supreme court justices, must either conform or be ruled incorrect...by you. Like the congressional records must be parsed to conform to your truth.
So exactly what is it about Barack Obama that you don't like? That he's left handed? Do you suffer from sinistrophobia, Informed Consent?
Because he is an established natural born citizen of the United States. That's been affirmed by the State of Hawaii, where he was born and by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, despite your aversion to the fact.
And nobody who counts reads it the same way you do.
Trumbull was very clear:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
"Not owing allegiance to anybody else"
"All British subjects owe allegiance to the Crown wherever they are." - Macdonald's case
And both are authoritative sources that know more than you do and establish that you are wrong.
Maskell's report is useless. He was caught being dishonest.
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.
, the State Dept DOES in fact have the authority to determine citizenship.
