Replies

For heaven’s sake, Syc. You still have quotations nested within quotations and no way of telling who is talking about who or what. I have no idea who “Professor Morse,” is or who is quoting him, or what he is quoting from or why we should care. There is no way of telling what’s a reference and what’s the stuff you’re just making up.

I don’t know why you have suddenly forgotten how to indicate references or outline an actual argument, but the impending nervous breakdown you were telegraphing yesterday appears to again be raising its ugly head. Come on. There are some decent mental health services available in Boise. Avail yourself of them.

No breakdown, just trying to keep you focused.
I can still post the same remarks.

Still no mention of British Law in the Constituion either?

I have no idea who “Professor Morse,” is or who is quoting him, or what he is quoting from or why we should care. There is no way of telling what’s a reference and what’s the stuff you’re just making up.

Again, showing your limited grasp of the subject.

Are you game for a little excersise, wiggie?

There is a book on “Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy” Authors: Thomas Alexander Aleinikoff, David A. Martin, Hiroshi Motomura

There is no reference to British Common Law in the Table of Acknowledgements, however Vattel is listed. Why do you think this is?

Why would a book on citizenship and immigration that references cases, and legal matters surrounding it, not hold your British law in enough regard to warrant it being referenced?

Might I suggest that take up reading and stop playing with the crayons.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.