ANOTHER ONE: Obama Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Don't be so impatient. I don't do one liner non sequitors like you do.

It takes me a while to type out my wastes of time.

-PJ

That's not my reading. The reference to domicile in WKA necessarily explains that his parents were engaged in business and not engaged in official Chinese duties.
This means that his parents were under the jurisdiction of both the US and the state of California.

A new court reading of the case could change that but I am very doubtful that will happen for the reasons I previously stated. We will see. This will be very interesting.

I was basing my opinion on the widely cited section 93.

I don't want to repeat it here, but please see this post of mine where I explain why I think section 93 is still open for interpretation.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4292513/posts?page=36#36

I also point out section 93 because the State Department cited this section in their Foreign Affairs Manual, specifically in Chapter 8: Passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad - U.S. Citizenship and Nationality - Acquisition by Birth in the United States.

-PJ

These radical judges are trying to clog up the system preventing Trump from implementing his plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The solution to that problem would require a Supreme Court that has not also become as lawless as the lower courts and would hastily nullify all lawless lower court decisions. Unfortunately the High Court is now controlled by Marxist-indoctrinated leftists including Roberts and Barrett.

Thank you for referencing that article Macho MAGA Man.

"ANOTHER ONE: Obama Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Whatever they're teaching students about interpreting the Constitution in the post-FDR era law schools, it's evidently not to consider the intentions of constitutional lawmakers.

From related threads ...

Noting that Rep. John Bingham is the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), it was actually Sen. Jacob Howard who requested that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase be included in that section.

"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born [all emphases added] or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Regarding Sen. Howard's intention for his jurisdiction phrase, the congressional record gives us his speech for including it in Section 1, his phrase best interpreted as rejecting birthright citizenship imo.

More specifically, he explained his phrase in the context of natural law and national law, these laws referenced below just as national law.

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law [all emphases added] a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." —Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment

The national law that Howard was referring to is probably the "mysterious" Law of Nations (LoN), international law at the time, which is referenced in Constitution, especially in the context of challenges to the natural born citizenship requirement for POTUS.

In fact, elite desperate Democrats trying to control the Oval Office seem to argue that since natural born citizen isn't defined in the Constitution, it should simply be ignored.

Getting back to 14A citizenship qualifications, since Howard explained the qualifications in the context of national law, consider that the justices who decided the Wong Kim Ark case in Ark's favor possibly overlooked that LoN indicates that he was born a Chinese citizen under international law imo, inheriting his citizenship from his father regardless where he was born.

"[Law of Nations,] Book I, Chapter 19, section 212:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children [all emphases added]; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

So if the justices who decided Wong Kim Ark were sincerely trying to determine Sen. Howard's intent for his phrase to be included in Section 1, they seem to have overlooked LoN.

But we still have the question, or so it seems, of the importance of LoN in our constitutional republic.

Actually, it turns out that Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had clarified in an official note that the Law of Nations is as much U.S. law as the Constitution is.

Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:

"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or³ Descriptions—
1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

So LoN that Sen. Howard was probably referring to is his speech (imo) seems to support the stricter interpretation that children born to foreigners and aliens in the U.S. are not automatically citizens.

Finally, since the neither of the terms “birthright citizenship” or “anchor baby” appear in Section 1 of 14A, these terms are interpolations and additions to that section (imo) which the Supreme Court has condemned in general.

“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [all emphases added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction [spin] and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

Wow, I don’t think anyone has so effectively both played the victim and claimed superiority. I guess SJWs aren’t the only ones who play that game.

You Canadians, except forbAlbertians, are not worthy to be Americans. You are just salty that Z man is getting stiffed.

I just don’t like dishonest people. I think a lot of people here are lying to themselves, if not covering for a hidden agenda.

Trump’s Agenda is America First. That is what this forum believes in.

It's a forum. It doesn't have "beliefs". The members do. As far as I can tell, it was a conservative forum. If that has changed, the home page sure hasn't said anything.

It’s not a forum for foreigners to come on here and crap talk the US. No victimized. We owe the World nothing.

I care about truth. Not playing macho man behind a keyboard.