Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-12-2013, 11:44 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
thomas jefferson had french citizenship when he became president and abraham lincoln accepted citizenship of san marino during his presidency.
Please list citations for both that they were anything other than "honorary" bestowals of "citizenship," much like "honoraray" college degrees that also have no actual academic credentials associated with them. As such, honorary degrees render the recipients ineligible for professional board certification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2013, 11:47 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
13 court decisions say differently.
What is their specific WKA citation? Let's see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 11:52 AM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,434,478 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Please list citations for both that they were anything other than "honorary" bestowals of "citizenship,"......
" so mr jefferson was naturalized in france and there made a french citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen,....."

A general abridgment and digest of American law: with occasional notes and ... - Nathan Dane - Google Books
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
It is well known what the REAL requirements are and they are TWO citizen parents. Always has been and ALWAYS will be.
Well known among nutburgers and nincompoops.

Rejected by every qualified scholar and legal authority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
Representative John Bingham, the father of the 14th Amendment stated:
John Bingham had exactly nothing to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. His opinion on it is no more authoritative than my mother's. And she's dead too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
This quotation had exactly nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Obama''s father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty called the United Kingdom.
Obama's father. Not Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Ted Cruz's father owed allegiance to Cuba
Cruz's father. Not Cruz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Rubio's father owed allegiance to Cuba
Rubio's father. Not Rubio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Jindal's mother AND father owed allegiance to India.
Jindal's parents. Not Jindal.

Under more than a half millennium of Anglo-American common law, the allegiance owed by a child at birth has nothing to do with its parents. It is the reciprocal obligation incurred by the child as a result of the government's protection. This takes care of Obama, Rubio and Jindal.

Cruz on the other hand gains his allegiance via jus sanguinis from his mother, just as McCain did from his parents. That this was the opinion of the founders and framers is proved by the Naturalization Act of 1790, where they explicitly said so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
None of them are a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen. They are 14th Amendment citizens. The founding fathers were concerned about place of birth and the allegiance of your parents.
There is no such thing as a "14th Amendment Citizen."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
Ankeny was a flawed decision.
Then why has been approvingly cited since by judges in more than a dozen other cases?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
They had it wrong on so many levels. It's funny how you cling on to that state appellate decision like it's the gospel.
Under US law, it is more important than any gospel. It has authority in our courts, where the gospels do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
Dred Scott v Sanford was a great decision. The decision was 7–2. It should be in force today.
It's not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
There is no such guidance in WKA. The Ankeny v Daniels decision is flawed.
In a two sentence post, you had a 75% chance of getting at least one of them right simply by random luck.

But you don't operate by chance. You are determined to be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:09 PM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,437,532 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
It's not.
But it should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:16 PM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,437,532 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
. His opinion on it is no more authoritative than my mother's..
Nor does William Rawle, the nutcase wacko Dr. Conspiracy and the man who wrote the nutty drivel 'The Annotated Zullo'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top