Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
No bait given. Just a correction of your errors. You claimed it said something that it clearly does not. It's your failure to comprehend that leads you to think it's bait - I guess you considered it bait when your teachers corrected you as well?
And thanks for the implicit admission of your error. Calling names and running away from the point is great confirmation of your error. Second greatest such admission on the Internet, second only to Godwin's law.
Sure, the one that was changed by the Civil War. Scott v. Sanford. Prior to that, ever court decision involving Slaves and Indians.
Were slaves considered persons? Nope - they were exempt considered property, not people. Chattel, just commodities to be bought, sold and traded as needed. Nice try, though.
And of course we've since had the 14th Amendment (those pesky Amendments again) - and since that IS part of the Constitution, and has been for about 150 years (well before the great, great grandparents of Rubio or Obama were even born), they are natural born citizens by virtue of birth on US soil.
You just don't want to answer the question directly - because doing so will show you to be a liar or a fool - and either one sucks to be you!
The logic is simple, but results in finding that Wong Kim ark was wrongly decided. Just a quick summary of WKA - the majority stretched the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" to include aliens temporarily on US soil, except ambassadors and hostile armies.
The logic of applying the preamble is that children of aliens aren't part of "we the people," because they aren't part of "we the people's" children (posterity). The document secure to "we the people" and our posterity, not to the posterity of aliens. Therefore, the posterity of aliens aren't citizens, and if they aren't citizens, they can;t be natural born citizens.
You have no intention of discussing this rationally.
Therefore I have no interest in communicating with you any more.
Interesting take! However, doesn’t that leave all foreigners/non-citizens on US soil exempt from the Constitution? Not just part of it - but all of it? After all, your interpretation of the Preamble would mean the Constitution only applies to citizens and their descendants.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
And this "REAL COURT" said this in 2009 — apparently wiping out over 200 years of American jurisprudence in the process?
And you don't/can't tell me about its appeals history, if any?
And you think that quite novel proposition is going to sit well with me — a second generation natural-born American citizen and member in good standing of We the People???
What, are you some kind of one-worlder, open-borders left progressive, or what?
Please advise!
You seem to have made the big time. Care to comment?
No. It just makes them not citizens. There is quite a substantial body of law covering the intersection of non-citizen residents and the constitution, and that would not change. -- After all, your interpretation of the Preamble would mean the Constitution only applies to citizens and their descendants --
Well, I was just stepping in where it was none of my business, and giving my take on what "PJ Too" was driving at. Anyway, as I said above, there is a substantial body of law, some in the nature of personal rights resting on the constitution, that governs the relationship of the US government, state governments, and non-citizens. See, for example, the recent festivities following Governor Brewer's attempt to regulate government action when police come in contact with those suspected of being in the country illegally.
Didn’t feel like chatting with someone who has no interest in Original Intent of the Constitution so we will both be happy.
As an afterthought, it should be obvious (actually, it is obvious, and non-contentious) that the simple fact of being on US soil does not convert an alien into a citizen. I assume the condition of "lacks citizenship, and is on US soil" poses no constitutional problem, from your point of view.
But if all laws are founded in the Constitution - and the Constitution does not specify the rights or responsibilities or duties of non-citizens - then I don’t see how we can legally do anything with or restrict non-citizens.
The only duties they have is to obey the statutory laws. We don't make 'em partake in jury duty or the draft, for example (except green card, permanent resident aliens, have to register). The rights they obtain are our "due process", more or less; and whatever benefits accrue by the restraint the constitution has on promulgating laws in general.
We have the right to restrict non-citizens on the same basic principle that you have the right to regulate guests in your house, even though they don't live there.
-- I don't see how we can legally do anything with or restrict non-citizens. --
Okay. You're just funnin' with me. ROTFL.
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.