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

To: patlin

“It goes to the law in place in 1940 & NOT YET REPEALED that the child follows the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock. If the married parents were of different nationalities, then the child MUST at the coming of age, decide & take a formal oath if the child wishes to take the nationality of the mother, otherwise the derivative(consenting) citizenship of the father at birth is said to be his ONLY citizenship of allegiance.”

Ummm...Congress cannot make a law determining the citizenship of someone born in the USA. That is what WKA was about. The idea that Obama is a UK citizen is...LOONY! CRAZY! INSANE!

No court in the country agrees with your novel interpretation of citizenship, which is why folks who agree with you keep getting their butts handed to them in court!


163 posted on 06/23/2010 2:36:38 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
Please do tell, give the specifics of ANY case that actually entered a court room. Give me an example of 1 case that had a fair hearing on the merits of the case in an open court room? Dismissal for lack of standing does not equal no merit to the foundation of the case. Congress has the authority to naturalize aliens/immigrants and say which aliens/immigrants may be citizens, which includes the immigrants children. Any child who acquires their citizenship because of an act of Congress acquires it through a form of naturalization. PERIOD! Natural born(born to 2 citizen parents) need no act of congress or law because at birth they owe allegiance to one & only one nation. The nation of their birth.

Again, might I suggest you open a book prior to 1800 where it defines the definition of subject, born on soil regardless of parentage & citizen, born to citizen parents.

I challenge you to find me 1 book that defines the 2 as the same. And I do not want opinions in law, I want actual law dictionaries or scholastic dictionaries because even Webster's 1825 dictionary defines them as 2 different things. One being under the rule of a master & the other a free & sovereign member of society. Free members consent to participation, subjects have no say or right to participation unless it is granted to them by the rulers.

I won't hold my breath for you to actually take the challenge as you have already shown your ignorance of history & the law. But one can still hope for the oppressed & ignorant to finally see the light & become informed & free.

169 posted on 06/23/2010 4:52:36 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | 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