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.
You’re welcome. Thank you for your civility as well. I’ve enjoyed the dialog.
If you can find officials who can be convinced of your interpretation of nationality and citizenship, I will be most impressed.
By the way, none of the people who had standing to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility because they could show DIRECT injury from him being elected filed suit against him. Those people who would have been granted standing are John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and/or the Republican National Committee on their behalf.
The first lawsuit in the 2008 election cycle (March, 2008) to be dismissed on standing grounds was Hollander v McCain in which a New Hampshire Republican Primary voter named Fred Hollander sued John McCain and the Republican National Committee due to McCain’s birth outside of the U.S.
This was months before any court challenge to Obama. The Republicans got the case dismissed on the grounds that Hollander did not have standing to bring suit.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php