Replies

You are just cutting and pasting words together from the cases without any logic or intelligence except maybe enough intelligence to intentionally MISLEAD people. It is like you gave a monkey some flash cards with parts of sentences on it, and then trained the monkey to hold up two cards. (For a banana.) You might get a sentence, by accident, but if you did it would be something like: [The house I grew up in] and [flew away on a broomstick.]

Here is another example of you doing it again, and remember I have already busted you out on this before. Here is what you tried to sneak past people:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ---all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

Do you understand?? "Citizenship by birth" defined by the Constitution ... through the 14th amendment. Contrast that with natural-born citizenship.

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

When "construing" the 14th amendment, Natural-born citizens are NOT defined in the Constution. This is plain and simple English that even YOU should be able to understand and be honest enough to admit.

That stuff in italics is what you said. Here is the sneaky and underhanded misrepresentation you tried to put over. AGAIN. In that case the Court was discussing a history of citizenship in the country, which YOU left out the CONTEXT of. Remember this little sentence in that decision:"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States BEFORE the adoption of the amendment. I am going to do it in a easy way by just putting in the DATES of the stuff the court was talking about:

In 1789 "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

In 1868 The 14th Amendment is passed.

In 1898 when the Wong Kim Ark case was done. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

You are trying to trick people into believing the Judges are talking about those two comments as both being said at the SAME POINT IN TIME, when it is clear if you look at the case, that they are talking about TWO POINTS IN TIME, one BEFORE the 14th Amendment when the Constitution DIDN'T say, and the other point AFTER the 14th Amendment, when now the Constitution, thru the 14th Amendment DID say.

You should just be ASHAMED of yourself for doing this kind of tricky stuff and YOU should apologize to everybody here for this kind of UNDERHANDED and LYING stuff!!!

I have already caught YOU doing this exact same thing before, taking something from page 655 of the case, when it is talking about the earlier history of citizenship, BEFORE the 14th Amendment, going back to England in 1608, and then taking part from page 702, when the Judges are talking about AFTER the 14th Amendment:

Which, here is the FULL context of the second part:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

I think you are being very DISHONEST on purpose to people here. It is NOT HARD to understand BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment.

So There!!!