Replies

“That’s right. And the only Constitutional authority CONCERNING birth it that of naturalization.”

That was true until 1868 when the Constitution was amended and Section V of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to promote legislation to implement Section 1 of the Amendment, the Citizenship Clause.
And we know that since 1790 Congress passed legislation and Presidents have signed it into law that exempted classes of people from needing naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

“So who, exactly was ‘subject to the jurisdiction’?”
The Supreme Court ruled that persons with diplomatic immunity,
American Indians (Until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) and members of foreign invading militaries are not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Everyone else born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction...

“No, the current viewpoint of the administrative organ is that natural born citizenship as intended by the Law of Land and written by the Founders no longer exists.

We’re either naturalized ‘at’ birth, or naturalized AFTER birth...which is WHY they use the term statutory natural born

And THIS is why Congress knew Obama was not eligible and protected him. Do you really think they would admit that the loss of our natural Rights is because of an assumed jurisdiction?

LOL! Not hardly.”

Wow, you’re psychic and you know what the thinking was of 535 members of Congress in 2009 and again in 2013 when Congress counted and certified Obama’s Electors without objection. I am amazed at your powers.
But you are forgetting that no judicial proceeding, (and there had been hundreds of them) had ever ruled that Obama was ineligible, so Congress had no back up for challenging Obama’s eligibility.
As early as the late summer of 2008, before Obama was elected, federal courts had ruled him eligible and challenges to his eligibility to be “frivolous.”

hat was true until 1868 when the Constitution was amended and Section V of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to promote legislation to implement Section 1 of the Amendment, the Citizenship Clause.

Which is still only operable ON the people it pertained to. Why did you THINK they had to but all the nondiscrimination language IN the 14th Amendment? Because it was a totally NEW type of Citizen.

-----

Everyone else born in the U.S. is subject to the jurisdiction...

According to them.

-----

I am amazed at your powers.

Getting snarky doesn't add any weight to your argument.

----

As early as the late summer of 2008, before Obama was elected, federal courts had ruled him eligible and challenges to his eligibility to be “frivolous.”

Yes, and that people had no 'standing'...because under current interpretation of the 'law', they aren't even human. They are extra-constitutional political constructs.... or 'legal entities'.

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

Quoting Cruikshank
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey , 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“ …as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky , 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

>>as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship<<<

-----

Natural born citizens are State citizens. Citizens claiming to be Citizens of the United States OUTSIDE the Constitutional areas of enumerated jurisdiction are naturalized at birth.

You want to know where our Inalienable Rights went? They were taken from us when government duped us into claiming to be the wrong kind of citizen

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
8 USC § 1101 – DEFINITIONS

(21)The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22)The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(23)The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Notice the FIRST definition of the current code does NOT mention the 'United States' at all. That's because they are NOT 'citizens of the United States'...but some one of them

------

As long as you continue to tout findings that agree with you as some type of proof while conveniently disregarding everything that doesn't, I see no point in continuing the conversation any further.

Thank you for remaining civil during the discussion.