Replies

I am not trying to provoke you with false flags. You replyed to a comment that I had posted and you cited Vattel, Venus, Happersett & WKA, all of which are important works, however, for the subject of US natural born citizenship, they are not the glue that seals the deal, the glue is the ‘right of expatriation’, and the key to defining US citizenship, at birth or naturalization. You all fail to cite Elk v. Wilkins (1884) which contains the key element, that of expatriation & jurisdiction. Without establishing jurisdiction because of ones right of expatriation, any attempt, as has been proven time & time again, is going to fall flat on its face.

There is only one type of US citizenship, however, there are 2 paths in which to acquire that citizenship, birth or naturalization. One had allegiance to a foreign society at birth and the other did not, his exclusive allegiance was to the US at birth.

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

It took you 5 posts to get to your point that all previous court challenges failed and that you were trying to establish the only correct method that a challenge would succeed.

That is a legal arguement, so I presume that you are a lawyer. Perhaps your arguements will prevail at SCOTUS. I wish you much success.

I am not a lawyer and thus I use logic, common sense, and the ability to read our founding documents to state my opinion.

Sorry if that does not meet the Court approved, legal form requirements. That is why I do not practice law, relying on a licensed lawyer for any legal needs.

I have gone to great lengths to study and review various references for my own personal understanding and have concluded that for me, it all boils down to ‘original intent’ and references that point the Founding Fathers relied on Vattel.