We now are a lawless corrupt third world country.
- # 11 explains why.
. . . . Article, a few gems to read, and lots of comments to skip; SP's don'cha'know.
Thanks, Danae.
Posted on 01/27/2012 10:02:09 AM PST by Danae
The best way for this to be rightly resolved is for Congress to pass a law defining the 14th back to it's original intent that no future court could pervert as to legislate from the bench which is what the court did in WKA. Until this happens, illegal citizenship will continue to destroy our nation from within by destoying its economy via nanny(parent) state control.
You should have kept reading. But if you prefer ignorance, go ahead. WKA overturned a part of Slaughterhouse:
“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase...”
Congress? CONGRESS??????
YGBSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want Senator Harry Reid & Congressman John Boehner to handle it? What color is the sky on the planet where you live? They would pass a law saying NBC included anyone born on earth....
Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”[4] And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”
The interpretative gloss offered by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court-by both the majority and the dissenting justices-in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.[9]
The ENTIRE court, dissenters included was in unison that "subject to the jurisdiction" aka "not subject to any foreign power" which was the actual language of the codified law until the mid 20th century.
There is no partiality in the definition of citizenship, one is either one or not. However, there is a distinction as to how one gains it and no where does the language of 1866 or the 14th claim it is anything but a law to define citizenship as holding but one allegiance, either at birth or naturalization. It's a pretty big stretch to say that WKA separated requirements at birth from that of naturalization without rewriting the language of the entire Amendment by relocating the punctuation marks therein.
I didn’t say it was a perfect solution and I have no illusion as I no longer believe in our political process that has been usurped and abused. True constitutionalist won’t run for Congress, well, not enough of them to make a difference.
On the other hand, look who we have in SCOTUS right now. They had legitimate cases before them and they refused to put them on the docket for a legitimate hearing. I mean really, Thomas went before Congress and laughed it off, so why should one even put their trust in an obviously corrupted jusdicial system?
We now are a lawless corrupt third world country.
- # 11 explains why.
. . . . Article, a few gems to read, and lots of comments to skip; SP's don'cha'know.
Thanks, Danae.
“I have no illusion as I no longer believe in our political process that has been usurped and abused. “
Although we obviously disagree on a number of issues, I can certainly understand this! I’m not certain I feel the same way, but I’m sure getting a long way down the road towards there...my tag line is a painful summary of my feelings.
Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President. That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.
...The experts will try to state that …….. can not override a majority vote by 49 other states, ……………..A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide natural born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in its minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.
.
:) Thank you for the support! I don’t mind being corrected, and technically I should have stated there is no federal law or official process for digitally certifying government documents. I try to be precise and accurate as well as informative because otherwise it is just feed for trolls. I try to starve them as often as possible.
I igmored the typo too (LOL), but mostly because I have gotten flamed for everything from grammar to spelling to word choice to punctuation placement.... its what folks do when they REALLY hate what you wrote, but can’t argue the topic or POV. For me, that sort of snarking is a win. It means they don’t have anything better. I suppose it is why I get so many laughs at posters like HumbleGunner’s at their expense. I know then I got under their skin. Heh heh Its a win in my book. :)
OMG! I need a screenshot... I actually agree with you for once. I need to go play the lottery, immediately before this wears off!
;)
You bet Lucy. I know how you feel, between the NBC issue, and Rubio, Obama, and Mittens.... now Newt floating Rubio balloons... It is enough to make even the strong despair. At times I feel like throwing in the towel because with everything I have researched and written, published... it never seems to make much difference. It is frustrating.
That being said, I am not giving up! I can’t, I have two young kids to fight for.
Oh holey moley how could I forget that article!!!!!!!
This is something VERY deserving of in-depth research!
Thank you for pointing this out and bringing it back to the top of our collective conscious!!!
Booyeah Kudos to you Elle Bee!!!!!!!
Paging RummyChick. Please answer the courtesy phone. Thank you. ;o)
The electoral college selects the president, not the states. Thus the number of states is irrevelent if a state chooses not to allow a candidate on their ballot. But it does send a “HUGE” message to the nation.
That’s one heckova tag line! LMAO!!!
The electors have to have two candidates to choose from. Georgia would have a different democrat!! Can’t hide THAT.
You forget that the other party does NOT have to be a DNC candidate. A libertarian or Indepentdent will do just fine. Furthermore, the Constitution does not state that the 2 people have to be from competing political parties, there merely needs to be 2 candidates to choose from. Most of the founders were not fond of political parties thus party affiliation is not a requirement.
You overlooked the fact that the other party does NOT have to be a DNC candidate. A libertarian or Indepentdent will do just fine. Furthermore, the Constitution does not state that the 2 people have to be from competing political parties, there merely needs to be 2 candidates to choose from. Most of the founders were not fond of political parties thus party affiliation is not a requirement.
08/07/92 STATE MINNESOTA v. ERIC JAMES DOKKEN
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19920807_0005.MN.htm/qx
"Rubin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran", page 241
Yearbook of Cultural Property Law 2008
Sherry Hutt, David Tarler
http://books.google.com/books?id=_FPqDD7IyUoC
Statutory default rules: how to interpret unclear legislation
Einer Elhauge
Harvard University Press, Feb 28, 2008
Professor Michael Zander QC
The Law-Making Process, Cambridge University Press, 6th edn, 2004, pp. 213-214
http://www.francisbennion.com/2004/nfb/006.htm
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.