Posted on 07/19/2023 6:26:48 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 17, 2023) — Well, faithful P&E readers, here we go again. As another “exploratory” candidate for president appears on the scene – Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai –, it may be prudent to once again revisit the Supreme Court’s 1875 decision in Minor v. Happersett.
While the major holding of the case (i.e., that Missouri’s denial of suffrage to women did not violate the 14th Amendment) was abrogated 45 years later in 1920 by the 19th Amendment, the question remains as to whether the decision’s other “observations” and “comments” remain viable and relevant to the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility question.
The answer to that question, in turn, may impact not only Ayyadurai’s candidacy – competently explored here – but may in addition cast useful light on the questionable presidential candidacies and bona-fides of many others, including Vivek Ramaswamy; Nikki Haley; Kamala Harris; and, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. A subsequent offering will address Dr. Ayyadurai’s eligibility arguments.
Turning specifically therefore to the decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162 (1875) – and totally apart from the now-abrogated women’s suffrage issue addressed by the Court in ruling against Virginia Minor – the relevance of the surviving, non-suffrage and non-abrogated portions of the opinion to the nbC issue remains. Those portions relate to the Court’s following observations, found at 88 U.S. 162, 167-168: ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/07/17/revisiting-minor-v-happersett/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Because in your post #74 you said they were pretend not real.
DiogenesLamp - “Shall be deemed” means “We will pretend.”
Pointing out that the word "deemed" means "pretend", is not equivalent to saying a naturalized citizen is a "pretend" citizen. I did not say anything like that, or intend to convey any sort of meaning such as that.
I pointed out if they expected people to believe they are the same, they would have said "is" instead of "deemed."
Now you are saying,
DiogenesLamp - “A naturalized citizen is not a “pretend citizen”, but they are also not a “natural citizen.”
Yes, that's true. So?
When the Massachusetts naturalization acts listed by Mr Rogers in his comment #70 say,
“shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth”
You no longer claim that this means they are pretend citizens of the Commonwealth but in fact “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be” means “are citizens of this Commonwealth.”
It says they *ARE*"citizens" of the commonwealth, but only "deemed", "adjudged", "and taken" (pretended) to be "natural born subjects/citizens."
Do you not understand what adoption is?
Adopted citizens are treated like blood family, but they are not actually blood family.
Here is a link to my BFF’s website, The Birther Think Tank. She wrote some pretty good articles on the two-citizen parent birther silliness and insanity:
This particular link lays it all out in Plain English. No one has any excuse to remain in ignorance about the topic:
(And, to respond to you, the 14th Amendment simply placed long-existing common law on natural-born citizenship into the constitution. Common law, or judge-made law, became Constitutional law, which is above statutory law even. So, a citizen under operation of the 14th Amendment is exactly the same as a natural-born citizen under common law. There is no difference, and when Birthers tried to make the silly argument that there was, the Ankeny courts and other courts simply sent them packing!)
This, from the Birther Bible, Chapter 2 of The Book of Vattel, may be of interest:
Chapter 2
1. Then there arose in the land those who denied the words of Vattel, and mocked the true believers and tempted them from the paths of patriotism with clever arguments.
2. These were known as the Anti-Vattelites.
3. They falsely testified that the common law of the English was the source of natural born citizenship, and yea, had been so for centuries before the coming of Vattel.
4. They told tales of Calvin’s Case, and how mere birth within the kingdom made one a natural born citizen.
5. Many were the American legal cases whereof they spake, and none which required two citizen parents to begat a natural-born citizen, when the birth occurred within the Kingdom.
6. But the fast tongues of the Anti-Vattelites did not stop there.
7. No, for the blasphemous tongues of the Anti-Vattelites fashioned the very words of the Prophet himself into a snare for the unwary, saying unto them, “But did not Vattel himself say in paragraph 214 of Book 1, that “there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
8. Their slick words caused many to doubt, for of a truth those words do seemeth to indicate to the unlearned that the Prophet Vattel taught England was a nation unto itself, wherein mere birth inside the kingdom was sufficient for citizenship.
9. Yet, the wise Birther, who hath studied the matter thoroughly, doth understand that there were two Englands, and the Prophet was speaking of the other one, not the one from which sprangeth the United States.
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/the-birther-bible/
Okay, now I think I understand what you are saying.
The aliens naturalized by the Massachusetts legislature who were “deemed, adjudged, and taken to be” free citizens of the Commonwealth in fact did become free citizens of the Commonwealth but they did not have “all the liberties, rights and privileges” of the natural born citizen/subjects.
Massachusetts only pretended to give them “all the liberties, rights and privileges” of a natural born citizen/subject. This in spite of the language in the acts saying the newly naturalized citizens were “entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities” of natural born citizens/subjects.
Speaking of Birthers doing stupid acts, The Birther Bibles contains a Book of Acts!
The Book of Acts
Chapter 1
1. These be the acts which it is better for thee not to commit.
2. Thou shalt not maketh a Citizen’s Arrest. These turneth out badly.
3. If thou attempts to maketh a Citizen’s Arrest anyway, and are afterwards arrested and convicted, do not talketh back and disrespect the Judge.
4. Thou shalt not engageth in civil rebellions or sedition.
5. If thou engageth in civil rebellions or sedition anyway, then thou shouldst not broadcast thy plans to bankers, the FBI, and strangers on the Internet. These also turneth out badly.
6. Neither shalt thou carryeth within thy vehicle, personal pleasure devices or deviant materials, as these will cause much shame unto thee.
7. Thou shalt not refuseth to deploy if so ordered by thy Centurion.
8. Thou shalt not walketh away from thy military retirement.
9. Thou shalt not maketh the youtube videos in which thou promises to arresteth the President. For lo, his protectors shall descend upon thee with guns, subpoenas, and search warrants.
10. Thou shalt not calleth judges by names or falsely accuse them within their own Courtroom, for their sanctions may be laid heavily upon thee.
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/the-birther-bible/
(I do not know about all of this stuff, but my BFF said one Birther got arrested, and he had a pink vibrator in his car. She said that all the acts above were actually committed by Birthers back in the day.)
You said, “Massachusetts only pretended to give them “all the liberties, rights and privileges” of a natural born citizen/subject. This in spite of the language in the acts saying the newly naturalized citizens were “entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities” of natural born citizens/subjects.”
ROTFLMAO!
As directly held in Wong Kim Ark, the child of two aliens, if born within the territory of the United States, is not only born within the jurisdiction, but is born a United States citizen.Are we arguing about whether or not he is a citizen? Because I have no disagreement with the assertion he is a citizen. He is a citizen.
There is no argument over whether Wong Kim Ark, born to two Chinese citizens, was born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States and was, therefore, born a citizen of the United States. The United States Supreme Court removed any possible doubt over a century ago. It remains controlling precedent, like it or not.
Take the bullflop of your imagination to court and lose.On the possible chance that I have failed to convey my thinking regarding the pronouncement of courts, let me attempt to clarify it now.
I do not regard your inane opinions about the courts to express any manner of thinking.
Your inane opinion certainly does not stop you from repeatedly citing court opinions, however irrelevant they may be, for example Minor v. Happersett.
Were any holding in Minor to be in conflict with a holding in Wong Kim Ark, any conflicting holding of Minor would have been struck down by Wong Kim Ark.
There is nothing in 14A, or U.S. citizenship law, about birth on a military base.Well there is in Vattel's "law of nations" in the section that covers children born of people in service to their nation in foreign lands.
There is also a roll of toilet paper. If lacking toilet paper, tear out the pages of Vattel's book and cut them into squares, and they will serve the same purpose.
Citizenship of people born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States is controlled by the 14th Amendment. Citizenship of people born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States is controlled by Federal law in effect at the time of birth.
No foreign law is relevant.
From the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual:
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html
8 FAM 301U.S. Citizenship
8 FAM 301.1
Acquisition by Birth in the United States
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021) (Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)
8 FAM 301.1-1 Introduction
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
[...]
c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
8 FAM 301.1-3 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
[...]
c. Birth on U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
It appears it was good enough to fool you.Most of the people don't need to know the details about Naval/Military ranking or the particulars of what facilities are available to take care of servicemembers and their dependents. We all like to believe they are taken care of, and for many of us the particulars do not really matter so long as the results are good.
People with knowledge of Service Corps ranks prior to the uniform adoption of Line ranks know there was no such thing as a 1936 Medical Corps officer holding the rank of Captain. If such appeared on a 1936 document, it would suggest Medical Director Irvine did not know his own rank, and appear hilarious to anyone who does know.
With your level of research, and lack of zeal, I would not expect you to know what you are talking about. As demonstrated in the linked article, the fonts change in the changed fields. The bogus document is worse than the Dan Rather documents.
As for taking care of service members and dependents, you are obviously ignorant of the difference between dependents who are command sponsored, and those who are not. Coco Solo was not authorized to have command sponsored dependents. Absent command sponsorship, the Navy does not pay for or do anything for the dependents. Where command sponsorship is not authorized, the Navy does not provide any facilities or services for dependents. There was no base housing. The McCain's lived off-base at their own expense.
Americans inherently understand that the children of servicemen should have full US citizenship. They understand that Vattel's view is correct, even if they had never seen it before.It is clearly natural, and the right thing to do.
What Americans knew is not as important was what Congress critters actually put into the Act of 1934 controlling birthright citizens born overseas. Due to their logic dysfunction they enacted a law which did not apply to anyone born in the Canal Zone, on a base or off a base. In 1936, nobody was born in th Canal Zone outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Nobody met the conditions of the statute. The law is not what the legislators intended to state, it is the words they actually stated and which wre actually enacted into law.
Of course all of my acceptance of the claim was based on the notion that a reporter for the Washington Post would not flat out lie regarding something in which his lie could be discovered. Apparently he is either dumber or more cynical than I would have thought plausible.
Well, you didn't know the name of the reporter or the nwspaper until I spoon fed you.
I did not say he lied. He got all his information from "A senior official of the McCain campaign official." Stenographer Dobbs appears to have printed what the "senior official of the McCain campaign" fed him. He may have had the same knowledge of its veracity as you. But in such a reality, if a "senior official of the McCain campaign" couldn't be absolutely trusted, who could?
Well, he had to make up something. Dobbs reported that:
"In his autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain writes that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr."
Some damage control was needed as the hospital at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. did not have a hospital before 1942. It appears the campaign made up some crap about the tiny submarine base with five subs homeported there, and Dobbs printed it. As noted, the Factchecker article appears to have been removed from the internet. As it should have.
As for Donald Lynn Lamb, the source of that piece of garbage birth certificate, read on:
The Panama News
Vol. 12, No. 2
Jan. 22 - Feb. 4, 2006Donald Lamb claims Colon
It’s a matter of historical fact that a number of shareholders were cheated in the financial maneuvers by which the United States government acquired the French canal company and the Panama Railroad in the early years of the 20th century. The smaller shareholders in these two enterprises in many cases received nothing, and records were then destroyed. In recent years one Donald Lamb has come along, purporting to represent shareholders in the old Panama Railroad and on that basis claiming title to vast parts of the former Canal Zone and filing many nuisance suits that in the long run have not prospered in Panama’s courts. One major reason for Lamb’s notable lack of success is that the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties had as their main subject matter the ownership of the former Canal Zone and arguably supersedes all prior laws and assertions of legal rights with respect to the real estate. But Lamb persists, and recently he’s been serving businesses in Colon with notices that the Panama Railroad’s lease of what is now the city has expired and that people there now have to start paying rent to him. This is a bit different than the other cases, in that ownership of the city of Colon was not at issue in the treaties.
- - - - -
The Panama News
Vol. 8, No. 2.
Jan. 26 - Feb. 8, 2002Colon property owners file criminal charges against Lamb
The Urban Property Chamber of Colon, a group of business and land owners in the Atlantic side province, has filed criminal charges against Donald Lamb and several of his associates. Lamb heads a group of individuals who claim to own stock in the old Panama Railroad Company, which was taken over by the US government in the early part of the 20th century as part of the construction of the Panama Canal, and which was transferred to Panama under the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Lamb and his followers claim that the 1904 and 1977 transfers were illegal and that they thus own vast stretches of property in the former Canal Zone. They have asserted their claims to such real estate as the ports of Cristobal and Coco Solo Norte by filing numerous lawsuits and registering claims to many properties. While in a few cases Lamb and his followers have prevailed in lower courts, such favorable judgments have been overruled on appeal. Last year, in response to Lamb's activities, the Supreme Court ordered the Registro Civil to eliminate all deeds in the former Canal Zone that do not derive from ARI's master deed. One provision of the controversial concession for Colon's multi-modal transport center requires the Panamanian government to indemnify the Consorcio San Lorenzo for any legal problems that Lamb's claims cause for the development. Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company.
Obviously, John Bingham was talking about a bill and not about the Fourteenth Amendment which was not even introduced for consideration until several months later.Clearly this point is important to you, while I don't care at all if it's from the debates on the 14th or the Civil Rights act of 1866.
If you recall YOUR WORDS at #23:
If you will notice my tagline, I will inform you that those are the words of John Bingham, primary proponent of the 14th amendment in the Congress. It comes from the debates on the 14th amendment, and he clarifies what group of people are to be covered under the 14th amendment.
It is only your fault that you have a ridiculous tagline which you accredit to the debates on the 14th Amendment. And while you cite Bingham as the primary author of the 14th Amendment, which he was not talking about, you fail to mention that he had nothing to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which was added in the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard. And you fail to mention that the correct attribution of Bingham's truncated comment was to the debates about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and that the continuation of the quote shows Bingham arguing that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional as beyond the powers of Congress. Other than that, your tagline serves as a blaring neon sign that says you do not know what you are talking about.
The information it contains is still the same. So far as John Bingham was concerned, children born in the US were citizens so long as they were born "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty."
Too bad for you that Bingham did not offer any words on citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and therefore no words of John Bingham were ratified as part of the citizenship clause. The words that were ratified, with none contributed by John Bingham, were:
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.
That's what was adopted. That is what became part of American organic law.
My #36 provided you with the complete text of the Sentate Debate of the citizenship clause on May 30, 1866, as opposed to your blather and nonsense.
In introducing the text on citizenship, Senator Jacob Howard, its author, stated:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Domestic decisions regarding a nation's own citizenship is not decided by international law, but it is clear you would prefer to have the United States subservient to the crackpots in The Hague.That's a strawman argument.
That is the truth. You just don't like it.
Citizenship of people born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States is controlled by the 14th Amendment. Citizenship of people born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States is controlled by Federal law in effect at the time of birth.
No foreign law is relevant.
If we were referring to the Magna Carta as an early source of the rights we inherited from the English, you would be suggesting I want us to be ruled by England. Same sort of nonsense.
The Federal government uses the English common law system of law. Fact. Every state but one also uses the English common law system of law. Louisiana is the only state to use the French system, established there while it was a French colony before it was purchased from the French.
Nice try at making believe I was referring to the Magna Carta. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
One is merely a citizen, the other a Natural Born Citizen.
Is this following the old birther argument that a Natural Born Citizen was one not born by Caesarean Section?
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand?
When a family adopts a child, what "liberties, rights and privileges", does the adopted child get?
Massachusetts only pretended to give them “all the liberties, rights and privileges” of a natural born citizen/subject. This in spite of the language in the acts saying the newly naturalized citizens were “entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities” of natural born citizens/subjects.
Recognizing that someone is *NOT* a natural born citizen, yet giving them all the privileges of one is simply an acknowledgment of the truth.
You keep failing to notice they keep using "deemed", "ajudged" and "taken to be", when they could have said "is."
Two quarters may equal a half dollar in value, but they are *NOT* the same thing.
I've read Wong Kim Ark. My recollection is that they go on about residence and domicile. The parents were legal residents, and would have been citizens had the treaty with China not forbidden it.
But this is all still 14th amendment stuff, and has nothing to do with "natural born citizen", which they conspicuously failed to call him.
The United States Supreme Court removed any possible doubt over a century ago.
They may declare what the men with guns will enforce, but I do not count this as proof that they are factually correct. I also have a hard time grasping how anyone can get their truth from someone else's opinion rather than the actual facts themselves.
The Pope may speak "ex cathedra", (so they say), but the court does not.
I was wondering when you would get to that. If you will notice, You cited Minor v. Happersett, and *I* pointed out the court acknowledges "authorities" which do not agree, meaning they are aware of "authorities" that take my position.
In my example, the court is being cited as a witness, not as a court.
The other aspect of this is that *YOU* and others believe in the infallibility of the courts whether I do or not, so you should accept arguments based on courts even though I reject them. (Unless they are in the capacity of witness.)
Were any holding in Minor to be in conflict with a holding in Wong Kim Ark, any conflicting holding of Minor would have been struck down by Wong Kim Ark.
I don't care. Opinions over a century away from the event are irrelevant, especially when they conflict with testimony at or close to the event by people who were present.
And both cases are fooling with that 14th amendment nonsense, which I regard as illegitimately ratified.
I have still yet to hear your opinion on that particular point and I suspect you might be in agreement with me about that.
I imagine these Birthers behaving like Kitboga, the guy who screws with scammers from India, just to waste their time, and screw with them, pretending not to understand things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4RzlopDpw
It befuddles me that a mind so good at legal research will utilize such commentary in a debate. Meh.
It appears it was good enough to fool you.
Well the main reason for that is because I just didn't care. I don't have a problem with McCain being born wherever, while his father was in the military and deployed. It just doesn't register on my give-a-damn-scale.
As for taking care of service members and dependents, you are obviously ignorant of the difference between dependents who are command sponsored, and those who are not. Coco Solo was not authorized to have command sponsored dependents. Absent command sponsorship, the Navy does not pay for or do anything for the dependents. Where command sponsorship is not authorized, the Navy does not provide any facilities or services for dependents. There was no base housing. The McCain's lived off-base at their own expense.
Okay. See previous comment above.
The law is not what the legislators intended to state, it is the words they actually stated and which wre actually enacted into law.
I have long disagreed with this notion, but of course it is universal in the courts. They operate as though the law is carte blanche to make it into what they want, but when they want to be @$$holes, they will interpret it so literally that it violates the intent of the legislative body that created it.
Laws should always be viewed in the light of legislative intent, *IF* that is discernible from the available records. (I believe Jefferson said something similar, or perhaps it was Madison)
Well, you didn't know the name of the reporter or the nwspaper until I spoon fed you.
As I have indicated previously, it wasn't a topic I cared about to any significant degree, and less so with each passing year. I may have a link to the source on one my computers, but the forest of links is so great now, I simply do not want to look through them anymore.
I did not say he lied. He got all his information from "A senior official of the McCain campaign official."
So McCain's staff lied or fabricated it? Well I could believe that too. I actually met John McCain back in 1994, and I liked him at the time. Little did I know what a greasy piece of sh*t he was. I now believe he was up to his eyebrows in the Keating 5 scandal, rather than just being a Republican scapegoat as he claimed.
So someone made it up.
One major reason for Lamb’s notable lack of success is that the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties had as their main subject matter the ownership of the former Canal Zone and arguably supersedes all prior laws and assertions of legal rights with respect to the real estate. But Lamb persists, and recently he’s been serving businesses in Colon with notices that the Panama Railroad’s lease of what is now the city has expired and that people there now have to start paying rent to him.
I remember Carter giving away the Panama canal, and I said at the time he was a stupid dumbass for doing it. Every subsequent thing Carter did simply reinforced my opinion.
But the Donald Lamb character appears to be a grifter.
Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company.
Not surprised. The guy's got chutzpah to even try the stunts he's trying.
So the Washington Post was reporting lies that may have come from a McCain staffer. And Donald Lamb made up the fake McCain birth certificate that circulated back in the day.
Okay, I feel chastised and better informed. McCain's citizenship status fell through a loop hole. Okay then.
I saw that one about the Constitutional Convention at #77. I had never heard that one before. I was wondering if you would give him credit for originality.You have never heard of a preference for first hand witness testimony as opposed to hearsay?
I remain unaware of the preference for first hand witnesses at a Constitutional Convention. What was the procedure there for voir dire?
I always thought that was to draft the Constitution. Who was on trial?
But the elephant in the room is illegal aliens. These didn't exist in the time of Wong Kim Ark because there were no laws barring people from entering the country.So your intention of applying that section from Wong Kim Ark to modern America doesn't really work. It's not quite honest about the difference between how things worked then, and how things work now.
He swings... and he misses again.
14A apples to all persons.
Are you really giving me your best effort, or do you still lack zeal?
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.
Are you one of those who thinks that the Constitution morphs with time?
Or do you just have a terrible problem understanding the meaning of "all persons." Perhaps you think it means all persons except those without your approval?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329
31 CFR § 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 81 FR 13991, Mar. 16, 2016]
- - - - -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330
§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.