Unfortunately for our duped asses this all appears to be somewhat truthful. Check out the Georgia expert witness testimony. Birth cert and SS docs appear to be frauds. Father born in Kenya. Gov is witholding citizenship documents??? why would Prez Barry need those?
When the drafters said "under the jurisdiction" they mean OWING allegiance to the LAWS of this nation, taken from the "common sense" words from the Constitution of this country. NOT some Anti-American non law biting pretend-ah-Americans, who can't read plane ENGLISH.
Since the word jurisdiction equals Owing allegiance to the LAWS of this country....than anyone, including those posting here, who do NOT want abide by the LAWS of this country are NOT citizens of this country.
Those who have EYES but can not read. They have ears, but choose NOT to listen, to evidence and fact of this country are NOT citizens of this country, according to this excellent evidence, as they OWE allegiance to a foreign power.
Matter of fact of the Law of Nations, these people, are Anti-Americans and are against the LAW of this country.
To be blunt, you're an idiot. There's very few that are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. if they're in the country: 1) Foreign diplomats; 2) hostile invaders. Everyone else is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, so EVERYONE ELSE born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. If an illegal alien woman has a child in the U.S., is that child natural born? Yup. Foreign tourist has a child in the U.S., is that child natural born? To quote Palin: You betcha!
10:57 I may take issue with with '...the court cannot create new rights...'
The constitution didn't create rights it only recognized GOD GIVEN rights it was formed 2 PROTECT/DEFEND. Founders were very concerned the bill of rights might be misconstrued as 'giving rights' or only recognizing those rights and thus assuming WTP had no others; or courts couldn't protect any but enumerated ones.
Some even argue the BOR was merely for fed citizens ie elected person or appointed federal employee.
09:07 its interesting that John Bingham says the Constitution DOES define that a person IS a NBC when born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty but Congress HAS NOT THE POWER (?) to say a person born of those not owing a foreign allegiance IS NOT and SHALL NOT be a citizen of the US.
@anyusmoon1 YES VERY interesting! Perhaps the MOST interesting QUOTE in the entire video! I'm using Congressional Records as sources, aka DEBATES when writing the 14th amendment. How can the Obots say they have no bearing, because the exact wording, isn't IN THE CONSTITUTION? They are in the records that led to the 14th amendment, meaning they ARE 100% relevent to the definition of NBC!
Flat out he says:"a person IS a NBC when born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty"
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Yes, read it carefully again. the key words / concepts are what it says and doesn't say... 1) congress has not the power (jurisdiction perhaps); 2) sovereignty is missing from the description of foreign allegiance.
Who is responsible for vetting presidential candidates?
@KenyanBornObamAcorn So, when Michelle Bachmann goes on the floor and cites a non-existent Act, that means that the Act suddenly becomes real? Just because a Congressperson says something on the floor in a debate does not make it law nor does it make it true. You have nothing.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn No you are not. Bingham's quote did not come from when the 14th Amendment was being constructed nor from when it was being voted on. It came from a Congressional debate years later on a totally different matter. Also, it was only his opinion that he was voicing, not the law. You lose again.
Yep... CITIZENSHIP, by birth, is defined by "BORN OF PARENTS WHO AT THE TIME (of the birth) WERE SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES."
and Yep some would argue that a married couple here on working visa's are subject to the laws of the united states but only if they BREAK a law. The contracts they engage in may be subject to the law too but only so far as the terms of the contract, not every aspect of their persons, holdings and offspring etc.
@anyusmoon1 "some would argue that a married couple here on working visa's are subject to the laws of the united states but only if they BREAK a law"
That's nonsense. You aren't "not subject to the laws" and then when you break one, you suddenly "become" subject to the laws. I always find it funny when people with no grasp of legal concepts talk about them like they were experts for their entire life - you don't read a book on surgery and think you're a surgeon, do you?
@magicmulder lol I guess jury nullification just drives u WILD huh!? Common man is quite capable of understanding right & wrong. Common Law. The point made in my scenario is that most 'good people' don't interface with the law unless they become a victim or have an accident. Most adults are capable of entering into a contract without the assistance of anyone else. Most adults are capable of sustaining themselves and their families independently and without assistance from organizations or gov.
@anyusmoon1 "I guess jury nullification just drives u WILD huh"
You are really bad at guessing. However I guess that you totally misunderstand the concept of jury nullifaction, or are indulging on your own delusions as to how many people actually share your crazy views.
@magicmulder Your comments are meaningless. You make no points for reply. Your debate fails. And what's amusing is that by invective you hope to win a point or influence people and this is the sad state of affairs in this country. I kick your dust off my shoes.
@anyusmoon1 "Common man is quite capable of understanding right & wrong. Common Law."
So "Common man" knew the definition of Vattel and how it differed from the Common Law definition of "natural born"? No. And since he didn't, why did the Founders put a definition in the Constitution that differed from what "Common man" understood?
No-one even heard of Vattel until some birfers pulled them out of their hat in 2008. It was always "be born here and become President", including civics class.
@anyusmoon1 So two foreigners here on a visa do not have to drive the speed limit? They are not subject to the laws of the US, according to you. They can smoke in theaters and spit on sidewalks and urinate in public because they are not subject to the laws of the US unless they get caught. Stop bullshitting.
@tgear77 Watch the video again and then maybe you will GET IT! You are not subject to the jurisdiction UNTIL you are required to report there (court), which means you are NOT under full jurisdiction of the US!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Wrong. As soon as you step foot on our soil, you must obey our laws, which means that you are under the jurisdiction of the US. A Canadian who crossed the bridge into Buffalo, NY, is under the jurisdiction of the US whether he commits a crime or not until he crosses back into Canada. You do not understand the law at all.
@tgear77 You are 100% spot on. And there are court rulings that address this. Most recently, the Plyler v. Doe decision of 1982. Texas argued that child born out of the U.S. and smuggled into the U.S. by their parents were "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
@tgear77 You're welcome. But I really need to proofread my posts. I messed up on Plyler v. Doe. I was distracted. Texas argued that children born outside the U.S. and smuggled into the country illegally were NOT "under the jurisdiction" and therefore not entitled to 14th Amendment protections against discrimination (which is what the case was about). SCOTUS plainly said "we reject this argument" and stated that in the U.S., they were under the jurisdiction and entitled to 14th Am. protection.
@BirthersAreLiars LOLOL, the obots always MESS up but it's just an accident, right! NOT!
I have a video coming out shortly that will prove the obots post out of context quotes, wrong quotes, quotes not even there and outright L:IES! It will expose them BIGTIME!
@tgear77 By the way, be sure to check out Plyler v. Doe 1982. The whole birther argument about "under the jurisdiction" is totally destroyed by this ruling. It's about Texas charging tuition in public school for children born outside the U.S., now residing in the U.S. illegally. Since legal citizens don't pay tuition in public schools, the illegals claimed discrimination...and WON. SCOTUS ruled that even aliens are under the jurisdiction and Texas could no longer charge tuition to illegals.
@tgear77 you don't understand the law at all. A Canadian who crossed the bridge into Buffalo still has to obey the laws here but if that Canadian has a child here, that child is only under partial jurisdiction NOT FULL JURISDICTION. I got that why didn't you??? DUH
@lindadurbin Wrong. That child, in the eyes of the US, is a citizen of the US and under the jurisdiction of the US until the age of 23, when such a child can choose to renounce his US citizenship. Such a child has dual citizenship in both Canada and the US. Try learning the facts before demonstrating your stupidity next time.
@lindadurbin Oh, no! How can I compete against a reply like that? LOL! That is what I love about you Birthers: when faced with the facts, instead of trying to defend your position, you respond like that. Crawl back into your hole and keep wallowing in your ignorance.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn You are. The fact is that Obama is eligible to be President, has been legally elected President, has had the vote certified by Congress and is still President 3 1/2 years later. And yet you Birthers somehow believe that only you know the law and the rest of the world is wrong. Tracey, did your parents have any children who actually graduated high school?
@KenyanBornObamAcorn To an idiot Birther like you, the facts mean nothing. You still go around claiming that Minor v. actually supports your case. LOL! And look, Obama is still President.
@lindadurbin Exactly right! That person crossing the border is not subject to US jury duty and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of the US! GOT IT! Neither is a child born here of the ALIEN!
@magicmulder as for studying, testing and practicing a procedure affecting life and limb that without such tests of competency and oversight would otherwise be a crime is a completely different matter.
On an aside... If we can't 'sue' a Navajo in 'court' then let me ask, how is it those same courts can hear a matter regarding Arab terrorists held in GITMO or any other facility on charges of (murder? attempted murder? financial aid or harboring the enemy?) terrorism or other crime(s)?
@KenyanBornObamAcorn I don't think the Senate has ever had a treaty with the country of 'terrorism'. But who knows what our congress-critters have cooked up. If they think its fine to have Owebama in the white house it looks like 'anything goes'?
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Does the Senate make treaties with terrorists? This is the problem. This is also why Ron Paul wanted to 'deal' with Usama Bin Laden and others like him using the letter of marque and reprisal feature of the constitution. In other words the terrorists are mere PIRATES, outside the law of any nation.
Now THIS is exactly what I have been SCREAMING for the last two years. I couln't have sad it better myself. BRAVO KenyanBornObamAcorn! You NAILED it right on the head!!!
only because you are born here doesn't mean you are entitled to citizenship. "Citizenship is a privelage not a right" If your Mom or Dad wasn't born here, and you were born here, your stil not a citizen.
ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN !
You're a two-bit liar and coward. How do I know that? Because if you had any guts or confidence whatsoever in what you spew, you'd identify yourself and you'd be at the head of a mob crashing the WH gates, instead of huddled over a keyboard in mommy's basement. A bright light would turn you into a steaming pos.
You obviously haven't looked at my other videos. I've been to every single Tea Party/Rally/Protest & both of Glen Beck's rallies, over the past 2 years. I've been out in front of the white house several times and I do my job here, so don't give me your lip.
I have just recently posted many comments on Wong Kim Ark that prove what a NBC is, go back and read the comments!
And FYI, WKA's opinion was by Justice Horace Gray who was appointed by Chester Arthur, the ORIGINAL Usurper, so I wouldn't read too much into that anyways, because it just night be VOID, once this NEWS gets out!
@KenyanBornObamAcorn "WKA's opinion was by Justice Horace Gray who was appointed by Chester Arthur, the ORIGINAL Usurper, so I wouldn't read too much into that anyways"
And the other SCOTUS judges voting in WKA were also appointed by "usurpers"? Remember the decision was 6-2. So even with Gracy out of the picture, the vote was 5-2 in favour of affirming the lower court's decision declaring Wong a natural born citizen.
But sure, everyone who disagrees with you is "illegitimate"...
@magicmulder Nowhere in WKA does it say that he is a NBC!
It is quite obvious that WKA's 6-2 decision was a complete contradiction of the 14th amendment and the founders views! The dissenting/minority opinions got it 100% right and they tried to stop this unconstitutionality!
Their opinion follows my video AND THE FOUNDERS, word for word and this must have been where everything WENT SOUTH!
Chief Justice Fuller was joined by Justice Harlan in a dissenting opinion which was "elaborately drawn and, for the most part, may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine". Fuller argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one's native citizenship)
@KenyanBornObamAcorn and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance. The minority argued that the principle of jus sanguinis (that is, the concept of a child inheriting his or her father's citizenship by descent regardless of birthplace) had been more pervasive in U.S. legal history since independence.
Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared to be citizens "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power...
@KenyanBornObamAcorn ...excluding Indians not taxed", and which was enacted into law only two months before the 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress, the minority argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power'". They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.
In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not"
The dissenters acknowledged that other children of foreigners—including former slaves—had, through the years, acquired U.S. citizenship through birth on U.S. soil. But they still saw a difference between those people and U.S.-born individuals of Chinese ancestry, because of (1) strong cultural traditions discouraging Chinese immigrants from assimilating into mainstream American society...
(2) Chinese laws of the time which made acquiring a new citizenship or renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime, and (3) the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.
END.
It's obvious that the majority did not follow the 14th amendment. Precedence is normally what's followed, but it shouldn't be followed, if it WRONG, UNCONSTITUTIONAL or contrary to the founders beliefs!
(cont) -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."
Remember, in Wong Kim Ark 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a man born to "subjects of the Emperor of China" who were residing in the U.S. was, by birth, a U.S. citizen. Which covers Dual citizenship.
US law recognizes only 2 types of citizens. naturalized Citizens and natural Born Citizens. last time I looked at Cornell, there was no separate section for citizens. *rollseyes*
Actually, I think I just found that out, when making this video!
You must be born here to TWO US citizens to be a natural born citizen or you must be naturalized! ONLY two ways of becoming a citizen in this country! Obama was NOT born to two citizen parents nor was he ever naturalized, which means he is al illegal alien and a USURPER!
You know, I think i'll sign off for now with a quote from Wong Kim Ark
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem (cont)
"The Constitution of the US, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the US," and "natural-born citizen of the US." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "7 years a citizen of the US," and every Senator to have been "9 years a citizen of the US." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of POYUS."
Declaratory means it is nothing new, that they are just declaring something that is ALREADY in the Constitution, MEANING that the 14th amendment never changed ANYTHING as you all say, claiming that it changed the eligibility requirements in article 2 section 1!
"Declaratory means it is nothing new, that they are just declaring something that is ALREADY in the Constitution,"
Yes, which means they considered the 14th as just restating what the Constitution already said, namely birth on soil with narrow restrictions, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
I don't know how you twist that into meaning they were changing what the constitution originally said, but then my brain is wired into reality.
Justice Gray also cites In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, saying:
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together"
Yep. That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. As Blackstone said, "Birth is the Highest Alliegence" and Mandison said "...In general birth is the highest Criterion. It is what applies in the United states"
WRONG, Obama's first allegiance was to the british crown IMMEDIATELY upon birth. Since he wasn't born to two citizen parents, he needed to be naturalized and never was. SO Obama is not even a citizen!
Justice Gray citing Mr. Justice Miller referring to the 14th Amendment "subject to its jurisdiction" clause (16 Wall. 128, 129)
"The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
I comprehend enough to know that Gray was agtually DISAGREEING with miller when he cited that.
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase..."
@jjoshaugh Gray also cites the slaughterhouse case, quoting Justice Waite saying: "it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
"Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
The slaughterhouse cases never ruled on Non citizen NBC as they didn't have to. So it's irrelevant to discussion on Jus Soli citizenship.
Uh, you obviously can't understand the fact that they were taking no position on the second as they had no need to to resolve the case at hand. And the fact that you deliberately left it out means that you understand that very well.
Ankeny Vs Daniels however chose to resolve it on the constitutional question or the procedural question, and they chose to rule on the constitutional question. And they ruled against your interpretation.
@jjoshaugh YOU obviously don't understand that they CLEARLY said they have NO DOUBTS about the FIRST, with the first topic they were talking about being: "it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
The 2nd was SOME GO FURTHER but that was regarding citizen, NOT NBC and he was saying that he DOUBLTED the 2nd but was SURE on the first!
Oh right, the mythical "citizen" that no-one ever heard of till 2008.
He never said that HE doubted the 2 parent theory, but that it was not necessary to resolve any doubts on it to resolve the case in front of the court that day.
When it was necessary to resolve those doubts in other cases, the rulings came down on birth on soil for 200 years.
That''s the truth. You are putting words into the Judges mouth that he never said.
Mr. Fish SOS for President Grant stated, AND was cited by Justice Gray in WKA:
"...Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country..."
obama is a usurper lieing piece of shit and the whole world knows its true.the ZOG must be destroyed and there power taken away for good. We as Americans must no longer allow forign interests to ever dictate us in any way.America for Americans ,fuck everyone else because all they ever try to do is steal or mooch of of us or they use us for forign gain.allies,what a fucking joke,i as a natural born American never got to vote on weather isreal should be our allies.FUCK AIPAC AND ISREAL.GTFO OF USA
Trimbull himself echoes this when he defines it as "it is only those who come completely within our jurisdiction, WHO ARE SUBJECT TO OUR LAWS, that we think of as citizens" That didn't apply to Indians as they are part of the US by Treaty, and its the treaty that governs their status, bot US law.
I think that clears it up. We have a 400 year definition echoed in the statements you cite.
I didn't do too badly I think for an amateur and a foreigner. But English law applied to Ireland too. :)
Howard says this when he said. "This will of course include those born in the United States who ARE forigners, aliens..." basicly, if the BABY ITSELF is a foreigner for some reason such as a member of a foreign royal family to whom United states law would not apply. It does not include someone able to apply for british citizenship like President Obama, as he was born a full citizen of the United states with no diplomatic ties. Else no-one born in a forign land could be an NBC and thats false.
Ok. Firstly, the "subject to the juristiction therof" clause is meant to prevent the children of Ambasadors, rulers and invading armies from becoming Citizens. Thast all it means. Its a definition that goes back to Calvins case and the judgement of Lord Coke in 1610.
Basically the theory is that the law of the land has an imperfect hold on these people. For everyone else, citizen or no, the law applies fully to them and thus their children are born citizens of the land. Ergo NBC.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT. BECAUSE OBAMA IS OSAMA. WHEN THEY ARE READY FOR OBAMA TO SHOW HIS TRUE FACE. THAT IS WHY THE GOV WANTS EVERYONE TO HAVE A CELL PHONE WITH VIDEO.
@KenyanBornObamAcorn There's a nefarious bunch of people running the world..... The Bible speaks of a one world system in the end controlled by a mark ( mark of the beast) in which no one can buy or sell, etc. These things are being implemented systematically. The people are no longer in control, its becoming a police state, controlled by the elite, which are robbing us, along with many other things. It all sounds crazy, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. God Bless
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Also you should check out the Labrinth Of Truth video's, they are excellent.... There's another series called The Arrivals, each of these are about 50 video's once you begin to watch, its hard not to. Keep in mind The Arrivals is made by some muslim's so there will bee some biased towards thier beliefs, but sift through that and absorb the reality of the message. God Bless
You ever hear the Myron Fagan speech? EXCELLENT and 100% and it's from, I think, the 60's!
If you haven't listened to it, I have it in one of my playlists, check it out!
I also have the "Letter to the sheeple from the new world order"(video title), ever read that letter? I have an alien speaking the words in the video!
All these videos filled with nonsense. What a waste of your time,Tracey.
tgear77 1 week ago
Unfortunately for our duped asses this all appears to be somewhat truthful. Check out the Georgia expert witness testimony. Birth cert and SS docs appear to be frauds. Father born in Kenya. Gov is witholding citizenship documents??? why would Prez Barry need those?
Peace in mid East,
2PacChopra 1 month ago
When the drafters said "under the jurisdiction" they mean OWING allegiance to the LAWS of this nation, taken from the "common sense" words from the Constitution of this country. NOT some Anti-American non law biting pretend-ah-Americans, who can't read plane ENGLISH.
Since the word jurisdiction equals Owing allegiance to the LAWS of this country....than anyone, including those posting here, who do NOT want abide by the LAWS of this country are NOT citizens of this country.
BS is a NON citizen.
wordpurified 1 month ago
Comment removed
wordpurified 1 month ago
Those who have EYES but can not read. They have ears, but choose NOT to listen, to evidence and fact of this country are NOT citizens of this country, according to this excellent evidence, as they OWE allegiance to a foreign power.
Matter of fact of the Law of Nations, these people, are Anti-Americans and are against the LAW of this country.
IE "bithers" are citizens... the rest, are NOT!
NO DEBATE, not for a second!
wordpurified 1 month ago
To be blunt, you're an idiot. There's very few that are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. if they're in the country: 1) Foreign diplomats; 2) hostile invaders. Everyone else is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, so EVERYONE ELSE born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. If an illegal alien woman has a child in the U.S., is that child natural born? Yup. Foreign tourist has a child in the U.S., is that child natural born? To quote Palin: You betcha!
BirthersAreLiars 4 months ago
With the recent scandals maybe the GOP traitors will re-think their position of covering-up for the Usurper in Chief.
JakeBlakeProject 5 months ago
u mad
ckbeats21 5 months ago
@ckbeats21 Not at all,why?
KenyanBornObamAcorn 5 months ago
@oregonisboring We have no current President
KenyanBornObamAcorn 6 months ago
@oregonisboring
He's not MY President and nor is he yours because he is ineligible. If you learn the facts, you won't be ignorant anymore!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 6 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn He is the legally elected President of the United States. All of your whining will not change that.
tgear77 6 months ago
HE NEEDS TO BE ARRESTED!
mspoorlittlerchgrl90 7 months ago
He was born in Mombassa, Kenya
ubuibme24 7 months ago
my bad: minus 100% sure
fromRomaniaWithLove1 7 months ago
im minus 100% u had acces to the goverment files
fromRomaniaWithLove1 7 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn - I am trying to stop the lies ... yours!
Fudgepackerhunter 9 months ago
@Fudgepackerhunter
Well, keep on tryin cause you can't stop the facts!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Very nicely done.
DABIGRAGU1 9 months ago
Moron.
nvpatentlawyer 9 months ago
@nvpatentlawyer
Do you go around talking to yourself, that often?
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Fools! Yours pleas for sanity are useless. Things will continue on as planned.
QuaaludeMidnight 9 months ago
@QuaaludeMidnight
IN YOUR DREAMS!
BO BO is going down!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Either way, another puppet will step in for him and the world keeps on spinning. Only God can stop them at this point.
QuaaludeMidnight 9 months ago
10:57 I may take issue with with '...the court cannot create new rights...'
The constitution didn't create rights it only recognized GOD GIVEN rights it was formed 2 PROTECT/DEFEND. Founders were very concerned the bill of rights might be misconstrued as 'giving rights' or only recognizing those rights and thus assuming WTP had no others; or courts couldn't protect any but enumerated ones.
Some even argue the BOR was merely for fed citizens ie elected person or appointed federal employee.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
09:07 its interesting that John Bingham says the Constitution DOES define that a person IS a NBC when born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty but Congress HAS NOT THE POWER (?) to say a person born of those not owing a foreign allegiance IS NOT and SHALL NOT be a citizen of the US.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1 YES VERY interesting! Perhaps the MOST interesting QUOTE in the entire video! I'm using Congressional Records as sources, aka DEBATES when writing the 14th amendment. How can the Obots say they have no bearing, because the exact wording, isn't IN THE CONSTITUTION? They are in the records that led to the 14th amendment, meaning they ARE 100% relevent to the definition of NBC!
Flat out he says:"a person IS a NBC when born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty"
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
He's definitely confirming the definition of NBC clearly, but it's kinda tough to understand the rest, when he's just talking about citizens.
Congress doesn't have the power to say someone born to a foreign allegiance isn't and shouldn't be a citizen????? Say whaaaa???
Either way, he defines NBC, which is all we NEED!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Yes, read it carefully again. the key words / concepts are what it says and doesn't say... 1) congress has not the power (jurisdiction perhaps); 2) sovereignty is missing from the description of foreign allegiance.
Who is responsible for vetting presidential candidates?
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn So, when Michelle Bachmann goes on the floor and cites a non-existent Act, that means that the Act suddenly becomes real? Just because a Congressperson says something on the floor in a debate does not make it law nor does it make it true. You have nothing.
tgear77 6 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn No you are not. Bingham's quote did not come from when the 14th Amendment was being constructed nor from when it was being voted on. It came from a Congressional debate years later on a totally different matter. Also, it was only his opinion that he was voicing, not the law. You lose again.
tgear77 6 months ago
Yep... CITIZENSHIP, by birth, is defined by "BORN OF PARENTS WHO AT THE TIME (of the birth) WERE SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES."
and Yep some would argue that a married couple here on working visa's are subject to the laws of the united states but only if they BREAK a law. The contracts they engage in may be subject to the law too but only so far as the terms of the contract, not every aspect of their persons, holdings and offspring etc.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1 "some would argue that a married couple here on working visa's are subject to the laws of the united states but only if they BREAK a law"
That's nonsense. You aren't "not subject to the laws" and then when you break one, you suddenly "become" subject to the laws. I always find it funny when people with no grasp of legal concepts talk about them like they were experts for their entire life - you don't read a book on surgery and think you're a surgeon, do you?
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder lol I guess jury nullification just drives u WILD huh!? Common man is quite capable of understanding right & wrong. Common Law. The point made in my scenario is that most 'good people' don't interface with the law unless they become a victim or have an accident. Most adults are capable of entering into a contract without the assistance of anyone else. Most adults are capable of sustaining themselves and their families independently and without assistance from organizations or gov.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1 "I guess jury nullification just drives u WILD huh"
You are really bad at guessing. However I guess that you totally misunderstand the concept of jury nullifaction, or are indulging on your own delusions as to how many people actually share your crazy views.
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder "nullifaction" *oops* make that "nullification"...
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder Your comments are meaningless. You make no points for reply. Your debate fails. And what's amusing is that by invective you hope to win a point or influence people and this is the sad state of affairs in this country. I kick your dust off my shoes.
TROLL.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1 "Common man is quite capable of understanding right & wrong. Common Law."
So "Common man" knew the definition of Vattel and how it differed from the Common Law definition of "natural born"? No. And since he didn't, why did the Founders put a definition in the Constitution that differed from what "Common man" understood?
No-one even heard of Vattel until some birfers pulled them out of their hat in 2008. It was always "be born here and become President", including civics class.
magicmulder 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1 So two foreigners here on a visa do not have to drive the speed limit? They are not subject to the laws of the US, according to you. They can smoke in theaters and spit on sidewalks and urinate in public because they are not subject to the laws of the US unless they get caught. Stop bullshitting.
tgear77 6 months ago
@tgear77 Watch the video again and then maybe you will GET IT! You are not subject to the jurisdiction UNTIL you are required to report there (court), which means you are NOT under full jurisdiction of the US!
FAIL!!!!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 5 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Wrong. As soon as you step foot on our soil, you must obey our laws, which means that you are under the jurisdiction of the US. A Canadian who crossed the bridge into Buffalo, NY, is under the jurisdiction of the US whether he commits a crime or not until he crosses back into Canada. You do not understand the law at all.
tgear77 5 months ago
@tgear77 You are 100% spot on. And there are court rulings that address this. Most recently, the Plyler v. Doe decision of 1982. Texas argued that child born out of the U.S. and smuggled into the U.S. by their parents were "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
BirthersAreLiars 4 months ago
@BirthersAreLiars Thank you. These people are idiots and will say anything to support their Birther agenda.
tgear77 4 months ago
@tgear77 You're welcome. But I really need to proofread my posts. I messed up on Plyler v. Doe. I was distracted. Texas argued that children born outside the U.S. and smuggled into the country illegally were NOT "under the jurisdiction" and therefore not entitled to 14th Amendment protections against discrimination (which is what the case was about). SCOTUS plainly said "we reject this argument" and stated that in the U.S., they were under the jurisdiction and entitled to 14th Am. protection.
BirthersAreLiars 4 months ago
@BirthersAreLiars LOLOL, the obots always MESS up but it's just an accident, right! NOT!
I have a video coming out shortly that will prove the obots post out of context quotes, wrong quotes, quotes not even there and outright L:IES! It will expose them BIGTIME!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 1 month ago
@tgear77 By the way, be sure to check out Plyler v. Doe 1982. The whole birther argument about "under the jurisdiction" is totally destroyed by this ruling. It's about Texas charging tuition in public school for children born outside the U.S., now residing in the U.S. illegally. Since legal citizens don't pay tuition in public schools, the illegals claimed discrimination...and WON. SCOTUS ruled that even aliens are under the jurisdiction and Texas could no longer charge tuition to illegals.
BirthersAreLiars 4 months ago
@BirthersAreLiars Didn't you see in the video, courts can not overturn the Constitution without an amendment! NUFF SAID!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 1 month ago
@tgear77 you don't understand the law at all. A Canadian who crossed the bridge into Buffalo still has to obey the laws here but if that Canadian has a child here, that child is only under partial jurisdiction NOT FULL JURISDICTION. I got that why didn't you??? DUH
lindadurbin 2 months ago
@lindadurbin Wrong. That child, in the eyes of the US, is a citizen of the US and under the jurisdiction of the US until the age of 23, when such a child can choose to renounce his US citizenship. Such a child has dual citizenship in both Canada and the US. Try learning the facts before demonstrating your stupidity next time.
tgear77 2 months ago
@tgear77 whatever dork
lindadurbin 2 months ago
@lindadurbin Oh, no! How can I compete against a reply like that? LOL! That is what I love about you Birthers: when faced with the facts, instead of trying to defend your position, you respond like that. Crawl back into your hole and keep wallowing in your ignorance.
tgear77 1 month ago
@tgear77 The facts are right in front of your face, WHO'S IGNORING THE FACTS? DOH!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 1 month ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn You are. The fact is that Obama is eligible to be President, has been legally elected President, has had the vote certified by Congress and is still President 3 1/2 years later. And yet you Birthers somehow believe that only you know the law and the rest of the world is wrong. Tracey, did your parents have any children who actually graduated high school?
tgear77 1 month ago
@lindadurbin I second that!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 1 month ago
@tgear77 Shows the laws that prove it!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 1 month ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn To an idiot Birther like you, the facts mean nothing. You still go around claiming that Minor v. actually supports your case. LOL! And look, Obama is still President.
tgear77 1 month ago
@lindadurbin Exactly right! That person crossing the border is not subject to US jury duty and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of the US! GOT IT! Neither is a child born here of the ALIEN!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 1 month ago
@magicmulder as for studying, testing and practicing a procedure affecting life and limb that without such tests of competency and oversight would otherwise be a crime is a completely different matter.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
On an aside... If we can't 'sue' a Navajo in 'court' then let me ask, how is it those same courts can hear a matter regarding Arab terrorists held in GITMO or any other facility on charges of (murder? attempted murder? financial aid or harboring the enemy?) terrorism or other crime(s)?
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1
Treaties???
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn I don't think the Senate has ever had a treaty with the country of 'terrorism'. But who knows what our congress-critters have cooked up. If they think its fine to have Owebama in the white house it looks like 'anything goes'?
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
@anyusmoon1
Sounds ILLEGAL to me!
Wow, just found this...GOOD reading...
Google this in quotes:
"Order Establishing a Military Commission to Try the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators "
and go to the UMKC one should be first result!
Explains a LOT about the law of nations and EVEN mentions Vattel!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Does the Senate make treaties with terrorists? This is the problem. This is also why Ron Paul wanted to 'deal' with Usama Bin Laden and others like him using the letter of marque and reprisal feature of the constitution. In other words the terrorists are mere PIRATES, outside the law of any nation.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
Now THIS is exactly what I have been SCREAMING for the last two years. I couln't have sad it better myself. BRAVO KenyanBornObamAcorn! You NAILED it right on the head!!!
only because you are born here doesn't mean you are entitled to citizenship. "Citizenship is a privelage not a right" If your Mom or Dad wasn't born here, and you were born here, your stil not a citizen.
catnkaboodle 9 months ago
ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN !
You're a two-bit liar and coward. How do I know that? Because if you had any guts or confidence whatsoever in what you spew, you'd identify yourself and you'd be at the head of a mob crashing the WH gates, instead of huddled over a keyboard in mommy's basement. A bright light would turn you into a steaming pos.
Fudgepackerhunter 9 months ago
@Fudgepackerhunter
You obviously haven't looked at my other videos. I've been to every single Tea Party/Rally/Protest & both of Glen Beck's rallies, over the past 2 years. I've been out in front of the white house several times and I do my job here, so don't give me your lip.
You can go now, your fudge packer ain't here!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn - ... and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Fudgepackerhunter 9 months ago
@Fudgepackerhunter
Which is why you should just STOP the lies and face the truth!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
What a waste of time ...
Fudgepackerhunter 9 months ago
@Fudgepackerhunter
You certainly ARE!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
So Stanley Ann Dunham wasn't a citizen of the United States? And what about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which seems to completely gut your arguments?
biffguiznot 9 months ago
@biffguiznot
Who ever said that Stanley Ann, wasn't a citizen?
I have just recently posted many comments on Wong Kim Ark that prove what a NBC is, go back and read the comments!
And FYI, WKA's opinion was by Justice Horace Gray who was appointed by Chester Arthur, the ORIGINAL Usurper, so I wouldn't read too much into that anyways, because it just night be VOID, once this NEWS gets out!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn "WKA's opinion was by Justice Horace Gray who was appointed by Chester Arthur, the ORIGINAL Usurper, so I wouldn't read too much into that anyways"
And the other SCOTUS judges voting in WKA were also appointed by "usurpers"? Remember the decision was 6-2. So even with Gracy out of the picture, the vote was 5-2 in favour of affirming the lower court's decision declaring Wong a natural born citizen.
But sure, everyone who disagrees with you is "illegitimate"...
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder Nowhere in WKA does it say that he is a NBC!
It is quite obvious that WKA's 6-2 decision was a complete contradiction of the 14th amendment and the founders views! The dissenting/minority opinions got it 100% right and they tried to stop this unconstitutionality!
Their opinion follows my video AND THE FOUNDERS, word for word and this must have been where everything WENT SOUTH!
Dissent:
CONT
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Chief Justice Fuller was joined by Justice Harlan in a dissenting opinion which was "elaborately drawn and, for the most part, may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine". Fuller argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one's native citizenship)
CONT
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance. The minority argued that the principle of jus sanguinis (that is, the concept of a child inheriting his or her father's citizenship by descent regardless of birthplace) had been more pervasive in U.S. legal history since independence.
Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared to be citizens "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power...
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn ...excluding Indians not taxed", and which was enacted into law only two months before the 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress, the minority argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power'". They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.
CONT
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not"
CONT
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
The dissenters acknowledged that other children of foreigners—including former slaves—had, through the years, acquired U.S. citizenship through birth on U.S. soil. But they still saw a difference between those people and U.S.-born individuals of Chinese ancestry, because of (1) strong cultural traditions discouraging Chinese immigrants from assimilating into mainstream American society...
CONT
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
(2) Chinese laws of the time which made acquiring a new citizenship or renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime, and (3) the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.
END.
It's obvious that the majority did not follow the 14th amendment. Precedence is normally what's followed, but it shouldn't be followed, if it WRONG, UNCONSTITUTIONAL or contrary to the founders beliefs!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn "In the view of the minority"
You don't get to rely on minority views, just like if you lose a case, you didn't "really win it because the minority agreed with me".
magicmulder 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn "The dissenting/minority opinions got it 100% right "
We know you are selectively relying on anything that "proves" your point, no matter how small the minority holding this view is.
"the founders views"
So you know the Founders' views better than 200+ years of case law and legal scholars. Right.
So you are the expert on Constitutional Law and the judges are idiots. Right.
Everything is a huge conspiracy started 200 years ago. Right.
Delusional much?
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder
One day, very soon, you will be saying...
OMG, why didn't I LISTEN to them!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Yes, sure, Obama will be removed any day now... any day now... any... day... now... ... ...
Haven't birthers been saying in 2008 already that "this lawsuit by Orly will have him out of office in 60 days"? Well, we're still waiting. ;)
Besides, I couldn't care less. You're not going to jail 69 million Obama voters, are you?
magicmulder 9 months ago
@magicmulder So if the 2 dissenting Justices "got it 100% right", why then is the law still on the books?
Give it up. You have proven nothing other than you are a complete idiot.
tgear77 6 months ago
@tgear77 I suppose you wanted to direct that answer to KenyanBornObamAcorn - I am not a birther. ;-)
magicmulder 6 months ago
@magicmulder Sorry about that. I was trying to correct that moronic Birther KBOA. She has no clue as to what she is talking about.
tgear77 6 months ago
(cont) -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."
Remember, in Wong Kim Ark 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a man born to "subjects of the Emperor of China" who were residing in the U.S. was, by birth, a U.S. citizen. Which covers Dual citizenship.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Irrelevent, even IF Obama were a CITIZEN, it is not the same as a NBC!
That's what you need to get FIXED in your head! You are still stuck on a citizen being the same as a NBC and they aren't the same!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
US law recognizes only 2 types of citizens. naturalized Citizens and natural Born Citizens. last time I looked at Cornell, there was no separate section for citizens. *rollseyes*
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Actually, I think I just found that out, when making this video!
You must be born here to TWO US citizens to be a natural born citizen or you must be naturalized! ONLY two ways of becoming a citizen in this country! Obama was NOT born to two citizen parents nor was he ever naturalized, which means he is al illegal alien and a USURPER!
All others are foreigners or aliens!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Ok. Point me to the naturalization office for babies in your local hospital.
Anyone?
I've never heard suck a stupid argument in all my life.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
It's turned out this way because the liberals/socialist have perverted the Constitution for decades and this is what happens!
This is ALL going to have to be changed, now that I have brought the truth to LIGHT!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Who better to take down the US, than and illegal, with a criminal past, present and future.
Auggie56 9 months ago
@Auggie56
Huh, Obama is not going to take down the US, we won't let him!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
You know, I think i'll sign off for now with a quote from Wong Kim Ark
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem (cont)
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh Gray states in WKA:
"The Constitution of the US, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the US," and "natural-born citizen of the US." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "7 years a citizen of the US," and every Senator to have been "9 years a citizen of the US." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of POYUS."
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Yep. That's declaratory of what is in the constitution. Thank you for agreeing with me.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Declaratory means it is nothing new, that they are just declaring something that is ALREADY in the Constitution, MEANING that the 14th amendment never changed ANYTHING as you all say, claiming that it changed the eligibility requirements in article 2 section 1!
YOU FAIL AGAIN!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
"Declaratory means it is nothing new, that they are just declaring something that is ALREADY in the Constitution,"
Yes, which means they considered the 14th as just restating what the Constitution already said, namely birth on soil with narrow restrictions, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
I don't know how you twist that into meaning they were changing what the constitution originally said, but then my brain is wired into reality.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
You seriouslt have comprehension problems! Video is 100% proof and you lose!
You may as well give up cause you ain't won one yet!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Justice Gray also cites In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, saying:
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together"
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Yep. That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. As Blackstone said, "Birth is the Highest Alliegence" and Mandison said "...In general birth is the highest Criterion. It is what applies in the United states"
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
WRONG, Obama's first allegiance was to the british crown IMMEDIATELY upon birth. Since he wasn't born to two citizen parents, he needed to be naturalized and never was. SO Obama is not even a citizen!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Have you ever heard of anyone born in hospital needing to be naturalized in real life?
Me neither. Stop talking rot.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
No, but after THE PEOPLE see the real truth and take us back to where the founders intended us to be, YOU WILL SEE LOTS OF IT!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Justice Gray citing Mr. Justice Miller referring to the 14th Amendment "subject to its jurisdiction" clause (16 Wall. 128, 129)
"The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Correct. Thank you for Agreeing with me in totality.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
It excluded CHILDREN of ministers or consuls...
AND it excluded citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the US (Meaning Obama, born here and had allegiance to the british crown)
You obviously can't understand how to comprehend what they are saying!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
I comprehend enough to know that Gray was agtually DISAGREEING with miller when he cited that.
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase..."
You are citing a ruling Gray thought was crap.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh Gray also cites the slaughterhouse case, quoting Justice Waite saying: "it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..."
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
He goes on to say (Birthers leave this out)
"Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
The slaughterhouse cases never ruled on Non citizen NBC as they didn't have to. So it's irrelevant to discussion on Jus Soli citizenship.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
LOLOL, "as to THIS class (MEANING JUST CITIZENS, not NBC) BUT NEVER AS TO THE FIRST, the FIRST being the "children born to PARENTS WHO WERE CITIZENS"
FAILLLLLLLLLLLL
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Uh, you obviously can't understand the fact that they were taking no position on the second as they had no need to to resolve the case at hand. And the fact that you deliberately left it out means that you understand that very well.
Ankeny Vs Daniels however chose to resolve it on the constitutional question or the procedural question, and they chose to rule on the constitutional question. And they ruled against your interpretation.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh YOU obviously don't understand that they CLEARLY said they have NO DOUBTS about the FIRST, with the first topic they were talking about being: "it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
The 2nd was SOME GO FURTHER but that was regarding citizen, NOT NBC and he was saying that he DOUBLTED the 2nd but was SURE on the first!
GET IT!!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Oh right, the mythical "citizen" that no-one ever heard of till 2008.
He never said that HE doubted the 2 parent theory, but that it was not necessary to resolve any doubts on it to resolve the case in front of the court that day.
When it was necessary to resolve those doubts in other cases, the rulings came down on birth on soil for 200 years.
That''s the truth. You are putting words into the Judges mouth that he never said.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Mr. Fish SOS for President Grant stated, AND was cited by Justice Gray in WKA:
"...Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country..."
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
While you're at it, do a search for "law of nations" while you are in the full text of WKA!
LOLOL, shows up several times!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn
Three, to be precise.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
obama is a usurper lieing piece of shit and the whole world knows its true.the ZOG must be destroyed and there power taken away for good. We as Americans must no longer allow forign interests to ever dictate us in any way.America for Americans ,fuck everyone else because all they ever try to do is steal or mooch of of us or they use us for forign gain.allies,what a fucking joke,i as a natural born American never got to vote on weather isreal should be our allies.FUCK AIPAC AND ISREAL.GTFO OF USA
solkacorot 9 months ago
Trimbull himself echoes this when he defines it as "it is only those who come completely within our jurisdiction, WHO ARE SUBJECT TO OUR LAWS, that we think of as citizens" That didn't apply to Indians as they are part of the US by Treaty, and its the treaty that governs their status, bot US law.
I think that clears it up. We have a 400 year definition echoed in the statements you cite.
I didn't do too badly I think for an amateur and a foreigner. But English law applied to Ireland too. :)
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
I think you NEED to watch the rest of the video! You obviously can't comprehend very well!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Howard says this when he said. "This will of course include those born in the United States who ARE forigners, aliens..." basicly, if the BABY ITSELF is a foreigner for some reason such as a member of a foreign royal family to whom United states law would not apply. It does not include someone able to apply for british citizenship like President Obama, as he was born a full citizen of the United states with no diplomatic ties. Else no-one born in a forign land could be an NBC and thats false.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
WRONG!!!
Freaking out cause you know you LOST!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Ok. Firstly, the "subject to the juristiction therof" clause is meant to prevent the children of Ambasadors, rulers and invading armies from becoming Citizens. Thast all it means. Its a definition that goes back to Calvins case and the judgement of Lord Coke in 1610.
Basically the theory is that the law of the land has an imperfect hold on these people. For everyone else, citizen or no, the law applies fully to them and thus their children are born citizens of the land. Ergo NBC.
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
Stop trying to MAKE UP Stuff, watch the video, it gives you the facts!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Hey Tracy. Wheres the big expose on me? I'm Dying to find out about myself.
Now that's out of the way Its time to debunk...
jjoshaugh 9 months ago
@jjoshaugh
I've got a few other projects in line first, O'nessy...But, I will get to it eventually!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT. BECAUSE OBAMA IS OSAMA. WHEN THEY ARE READY FOR OBAMA TO SHOW HIS TRUE FACE. THAT IS WHY THE GOV WANTS EVERYONE TO HAVE A CELL PHONE WITH VIDEO.
cantore35 9 months ago
@cantore35
EEEEEWW, that is CREEPY!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Obama thinks this whole thing has blown over. lol
KenyanImport 9 months ago
@KenyanImport
Yes, he does! But he's in for a surprise!
p.s. I deleted that last comment and put it under the right person cause it was sent as a reply to yours by accident!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
Good job. Don't give up. You rock.
LoneStar1776 9 months ago
@LoneStar1776
Thanks Rudy!
I ain't givin up til he's OUTTA THERE!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
100% truth,deport illegals and there latchkey children,NO AMNESTY.
solkacorot 9 months ago
@solkacorot
AMEN and that means Obama too! Take him back to Kenya or Indonesia, where he can be THEIR Dictator, NOT OURS!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
The problem is everyone that can be doing something about it isn't! This country is corrupted from within
gmako74 9 months ago
@gmako74
BOY is it! Hard to believe that SO MANY could be involved!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn There's a nefarious bunch of people running the world..... The Bible speaks of a one world system in the end controlled by a mark ( mark of the beast) in which no one can buy or sell, etc. These things are being implemented systematically. The people are no longer in control, its becoming a police state, controlled by the elite, which are robbing us, along with many other things. It all sounds crazy, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. God Bless
gmako74 9 months ago
@gmako74
Been reading all about it for the past 2 years!
UNBELIEVABLE!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@gmako74
That reminds me...
My "Faces of evil that rule the world" video, is almost done! You should like it!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn I'll check it out! Thanks
gmako74 9 months ago
@KenyanBornObamAcorn Also you should check out the Labrinth Of Truth video's, they are excellent.... There's another series called The Arrivals, each of these are about 50 video's once you begin to watch, its hard not to. Keep in mind The Arrivals is made by some muslim's so there will bee some biased towards thier beliefs, but sift through that and absorb the reality of the message. God Bless
gmako74 9 months ago
@gmako74
You ever hear the Myron Fagan speech? EXCELLENT and 100% and it's from, I think, the 60's!
If you haven't listened to it, I have it in one of my playlists, check it out!
I also have the "Letter to the sheeple from the new world order"(video title), ever read that letter? I have an alien speaking the words in the video!
KenyanBornObamAcorn 9 months ago