Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ExTxMarine

“You say there is no way around those opening words “All persons born..” and I say there is - “...under the jurisdiction thereof...”! This was not a “loophole” which some people argue and this is not a mistake, it was meant to clarify that the people had a sole interest and allegiance to the United States! This has been shown to be the case over and over and over again.”


The only persons who aren’t “under the jurisdiction thereof” are persons with diplomatic immunity and members of a foreign occupying army on US soil (like the Mexican Army during the Mexican War).
That was decided by the Supreme Court back in the 19th Century.
Haven’t you noticed that aliens who are in the US are still
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in that they must obey US laws while they are here? We can deport illegal aliens because they too are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under US immigration law.

In 1898, the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese-American man whose parents were citizens of China was a natural born American citizen since he was born on US soil. In 1898 the Chinese Exclusion Act was in force which did not allow Chinese immigrants to become US citizens but the court found that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the US, he was not an immigrant even though his parents were immigrants who returned to live in China.

No subsequent Supreme Court decision has overturned the ruling in Wong Kim Ark over the last 112 years.
Current US law defines a Citizen-at-birth as a person born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. No law passed by Congress and no Supreme Court decision has ever found that there is a legal difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.
The following is from the majority decision in US v Wong Kim Ark: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

Your point on the Constituttionality of Obamacare should be decided by the US Supreme Court. That’s who decides what is constitutional and what is not. The Supreme Court has exercised the power of judicial review since Marbury v Madison in 1803.

The correct way to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president is via a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power and expert testimony. An indictment if the investigation warrants it, a Bill of Impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives and if that passes, a trial in the US Senate.
I would have no problem whatsoever with using the proper steps to determine whether any high crimes or misdemeanors have been committed. I would also have no problem whatsoever with a conviction and removal of Obama from the presidency if the Senate votes to convict.

The following is from an ex-Marine Lieutenant, Vietnam Veteran and winner of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became the President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through the impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”—Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.” —October 29, 2009


135 posted on 06/23/2010 10:07:35 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
dear jameseeee, why is it that to this day, according to US codified law, ALL immigrants must take an oath renouncing ANY & ALL allegiances to foreign states/nations/kings/rulers, renounce ANY & ALL titles of nobility and swear to a COMPLETE allegiance to the United Sates of America? This is the definition of US citizen and it does not apply to children born to aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign state/nation at the moment of birth,

PERKINS v ELG (1939)

Elg was held to be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” because at the time of her birth, BOTH her parents were naturalized US citizens. WKA was held to be a “CITIZEN” because there was a corrupt judge who used ENGLISH law instead of 100 years of US law.

ELK v WILKINS (1874) in which Gray wrote in the deciding opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant more than mere local & temporary allegiance to the laws, it meant COMPLETE & UNDIVIDED political allegiance to the nation with ABSOLUTELY NO ATTATCHMENT to any foreign nation.

136 posted on 06/23/2010 10:26:59 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson