Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
What an IDIOT! There are no word to describe your STUPIDITY!
Again, there are no words to describe your STUPIDITY! I’m done with ignorance as you have gone so far beyond that, that there is no other course to take.
What are the stricter standards pertaining to citizenship between the two?"
So Tublecane, are you going to answer RIO's question?
“Oh, really? Distortion?...The Law of Nations cited on the document are on pages 1, 3, 4, 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61 and 62.”
The issue is not whether international law has any validity in the U.S. It is whether Enghlish common law is irrelevant (it isn’t) and what bearing international law has on domestic policy (none).
“It is very clear from the correspondence that existed between our Founders, that they used Vattel extensively as a source.”
It is ever more clear that they used Blackstone as a source.
Again, there are no words to describe your STUPIDITY! I’m done with ignorance as you have gone so far beyond that, that there is no other course to take."
I think it is beyond stupid.
“They can not grasp, let alone comprehend that when the Declaration of Independence declared that ALL political bonds were dissolved, that meant the form aka feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance & jus soli subjectship was also dissolved”
Allegiance through “jus soli” to the crown, yes. But not necessarily the concept of “jus soli,” any more than we lost the concepts of trial by jury, habeas corpus, petitioning the government for grievance, peaceable assembly, due process, and countless others.
I await his answer and am very curious to see how he explains it.....lol
You don't care about it because you can not refute it. Its you only defense and it reeks of desperation!
“and the French would not have had the authority of law to come to the aid of the US.”
Do you think the French gave a fig if their actions were legal? Or, at least, any more legal than other wars they fought from time to time (which, I’m sure, at some point involved interfering in another nation’s sovereignty)? They were out to hurt Britain, little more.
“the United States would not have been recognized as a Federal Union of Sovereign Political States by the rest of world”
The USSR was eventually internationally recognized even though a lot of people basically still considered them a murderously criminal empire (maybe not FDR, who loved his Uncle Joe, but others). It’s realpolitik.
“A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a ‘natural born’ citizen (bestowed by God/nature)”
Assuming you’re correct:
1) the U.S. Constitution did not exist until it was written with a pen,
and
2) there was no U.S. before there was a U.S. Constitution,
therefore
3) there are no U.S. citizens.
Sorry, I meant there are no natural born U.S. citizens.
“Show me where in the SCOTUS opinion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that said Ark was a natural born CITIZEN? Nope, not there there...”
For the umpteenth and I hope final time, that’s not what was at issue! Also, no one ever claimed it did, unlike your otherwordly claims for Elg and Kawakita.
Really? So why does Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution say a President must be a Natural Born Citizen?
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.
“you like to post trivial crap but won’t respond to actual references to natural law by distinguished Englishmen & the US Congress & census records. You are all the same...you can handle debating the truth. You always cut & run because you can not come back with equally substantial proof to refute it.”
Ever stop to think that what you post is irrelevant and not worth responding to? Which you might find out if you carefully read it instead of hastily cutting and pasting it from whatever birther database you frequent.
That post with the census dialogue was particularly useless. If we know one thing, we know soil babies are not foreigners but U.S. citizens. The 14th amendment says so, Wong Kim Ark decided so, and it’s become common knowledge along the lines of blacks can’t be slaves anymore and booze was once outlawed before it wasn’t.
By the way, cut and run? This thread has about 400 posts, and there are ones like it all the time. What the heck are we talking about if everyone’s ignoring you?
English common law is pretty irrelevant. We do share common types of laws with other nations, but they are not the same and as English laws are disparate from American common law, which has developed separately after we broke away from Great Britian and formed our own country.
I can't say it better than this guy did below.
Here is an excerpt from Jedi Pauly's in his essay:
- - - - - -
"The Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776 secured the sovereign political authority of the former citizen “subjects” of the King of England who were not born having their natural sovereign political authority or natural sovereign political rights to be recognized by the King.
With the successful conclusion of the War of 1776, the colonies, and later the U.S., no longer recognized the automatic inherited political allegiances from soil jurisdictions which had been the case in the colonies under the monarchy form of government of England. U.S. law does not recognize there to be political allegiances owed due to being born on soil jurisdictions.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens.
A Sovereign authority is the author and source of the law.
A Sovereign citizen takes his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes.
Natural Rights are Inherited from other human beings and are not obtained from soil jurisdictions which are just artificially created legal fictions.
Article II is meant to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and nation by ensuring political allegiance to a Sovereign Republic form of government by preventing a monarchy, because the original intent was that Article II should bar Titles of Nobility from attaining the office of President, which would create a Monarchy and not a Sovereign Republic."
“WKA has no bearing on natural born either as the court never declared WKA to be natural born. PERIOD”
It didn’t settle it, but it doesn’t lack all bearing. For instance, it settles that soil babies are, indeed, U.S. citizens. With that, all you need is to accept that natural born citizen means to be born a citizen, and you’re home free.
“Oh contraire, in both cases the foreign parents (of course) and the baby would not be natural born citizens...so the dangling modifier point is moot.”
You’d be right, in any case, about the parents and wrong about the children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.