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 original body of the Constitution names two kinds of citizens, Natural Born Citizens and Non-Natural Born Citizens.
All but Natural Born Citizens, are Non-Natural Born Citizens.
The 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did not merge the two. They couldn't. They knew better.
"Article II, Section I
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."
Here's so what, if it were true that the Framers of the US Constitution followed the English rule, which is what is asserted by some, here in 2013, then for a native-born child in the US, in 2013, to be a natural born citizen, in 2013, that child would have to be born to a US citizen father in 2013.
We know that the framers used English Common Law as a reference, but our laws do not directly correspond to England's. We fought a war to break away from them and form a new government. Some think Christianity is part of English Common Law. We don't.
Proven facts = NOWHERE in 17th century English law was it ever held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject and it was expressly and specifically held that to be a natural born subject (aka subject born) one had to be "born under the ligeance of a subject".
I don't have a wife. I'm female. And that has NOTHING to do with you and HD insisting that U.S. citizens are subjects of a monarchy as stipulated in English common law.
But you DID just admit you CANNOT answer the question... Which monarchy are U.S. citizens subjects of?
I don't have a wife. I'm female. And that has NOTHING to do with you and HD insisting that U.S. citizens are subjects of a monarchy as stipulated in English common law.
But you DID just admit you CANNOT answer the question... Which monarchy are U.S. citizens subjects of?
Squirm away, men.
Did I call it or did I call it?
Simply put, the question which you posed (Which monarchy are U.S. citizens subject of?) requires that one blindly accept the false notion that subjects are only subjects to a monarch.
The entire point is that people who are subjects are subjects to sovereignty - that can be a monarch or an emperor or a dictator...
Or the republican government defined by the Constitution of the United States.
Sovereignty of the United States government comes from the will of the people governed.
I've answered your non-question, why didn't you answer my real question?
InformedConsent, are you or are you not subject to the laws of this nation?
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.
that U.S. citizens are subjects of a monarchy as stipulated in English common law. 
