Rep Ted Yoho Dances Around Birtherism (document, work, countries, facts)
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.
Those of us who are knowledgeable about U.S. and world history, U.S. law, international law, and the U.S. Constitution know that Obama is an illegitimate president.
Those of us who are knowledgeable about U.S. and world history, U.S. law, international law, and the U.S. Constitution know that Congress could someday clarify the definition of "natural born citizen" in such a way that President Obama might not fit that definition (a possibility, but very unlikely), and it still would not make President Obama illegitimate, as he currently fits the definition of "natural born citizen" as the federal government, and especially the courts, interpret it.
(1) Other countries have laws. Their laws take precedence over American laws in their countries. In the US, our laws take precedence.
Just as U.S. law takes precedence in the U.S. Cite the federal law that says anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.
You'll find that such a law doesn't exist. The U.S. nationality law requires one to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. We already know the definition of that requirement because it's a matter of public record.
Quote:
(2) So what?
So you admit they recognize other countries' laws while maintaining their own sovereignty. Good.
Quote:
(3) Yes, "subject to the jurisdiction" is part of the US law. No one is saying it isn't. What I AM saying...
You don't get a say. The U.S. Constitution and federal law get a say.
No. Instead, read what Trumbull said in context. He was speaking explicitly and exclusively about the exception for Indians, since they are not considered by the common law. His comments have nothing to do with dual citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark extended birthright citizenship to those whose parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their U.S. birth but there are severe flaws in that ruling, among the most egregious errors is the fact that in neither England NOR the U.S. were children born to aliens natural born subjects/citizens. There has been a lot of discussion of this and there is ample proof that Gray was clearly in error in that assertion.
Ignoring that WKA "extended" nothing to anybody, you seem unclear on the concept. A Supreme Court decision is, by definition, never "in error." It is the very standard for what is legally true and correct.
This is no better demonstrated than by the 23 subsequent courts which have followed the WKS precedent and declared Barack Obama to be a natural born US citizen.
Just as U.S. law takes precedence in the U.S. Cite the federal law that says anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.
You'll find that such a law doesn't exist. The U.S. nationality law requires one to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. We already know the definition of that requirement because it's a matter of public record.
So you admit they recognize other countries' laws while maintaining their own sovereignty. Good.
You don't get a say. The U.S. Constitution and federal law get a say.
The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" simply means obligated to obey the laws of the United States, and failing that obligation, you can be detained, arrested, tried, and punished by the United States. Who, on US soil, isn't "subject to the jurisdiction"? Members of diplomatic missions who enjoy diplomatic immunity, and members of an invading army. Everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction. They may choose to break the laws of the United States, their very presence may be a violation of the laws of the United States, in which case, if they are caught, they are subject to US jurisdiction's ability to prosecute them for breaking laws.
No. Instead, read what Trumbull said in context. He was speaking explicitly and exclusively about the exception for Indians, since they are not considered by the common law.
So... you're changing your story. NOT all those born in the U.S. were U.S. citizens, even AFTER the 14th Amendment and the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling.
Um, yeah... that's EXACTLY what I've been saying. WITH multiple instances of actual proof.
And your common law reference is BS. We know for a fact that the children of Denizens (resident aliens) born in the U.K. were not, and were not treated as, natural born English subjects. There are plenty of historical documents and references that prove that point.
So you admit they recognize other countries' laws while maintaining their own sovereignty. Good.
NO, I admit that other countries have different laws. That's it. That's the so what? You assert that other countries have citizenship laws that are different from the United States. Yes, they do. So what? Their laws don't play a role in the laws of the United States. The laws of the United States are free-standing, not dependent on the laws of any other country. That's sovereignty.
The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" simply means obligated to obey the laws of the United States, and failing that obligation, you can be detained, arrested, tried, and punished by the United States.
Out of context, perhaps.
In the context of the 14th Amendment and the federal nationality law on which it was based, we know that the definition is such:
"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."
NO, I admit that other countries have different laws. That's it. That's the so what?
So you admit that sovereign countriesdeny citizenship to those born within their boundaries but are foreign citizens/subjects because they were born to alien parents.
Those sovereign countries recognize other countries' nationality laws. You've just admitted it.
But they haven't yet. You have been unable to cite any federal law or Constitutional Amendment supporting any of your claims.
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 U.S. Constitution and federal law get a say.
