It's true about meager portions in Paris and nearby but not in southern France.
From your wheelchair, old man?
Second Amendment - incorrectly interpreted.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I guess you missed the part of the Constitution where it specifically says that rights not enumerated in the Constitution exist.
You're a felon? No surprise.
But your attempts are so clumsy that it reveals why your Reich is failing.
Let us remind the sentient beings here;
{
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.}
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...
www.heritage.org
Your temper tantrum won't save the "Great Replacement" plot of your party.
The damage you've done with open borders won't be undone, but further damage stops now.
Your hive will have to cook up another scheme to destroy America. This one is over.
True, I don't think I said the founders wrote it, but If I did it was a mistake.
The 14th Amendment holds the same power and strength as does what the Founders wrote. You see, the founders gave that gift to the future, the ability to create Amendments that carry the full force of the original document.
"The Fourteenth 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 all 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."
“A child born in the United States, of parents of foreign descent, who are domiciled and resident in the United States, and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign government, becomes at the time of birth a citizen of the United States.”
- Wong Kim Ark, majority opinion by justice Horace Gray
Last edited:
“Clearly?”
If alive today the Founders would want to hand out “military grade weapons” to every citizen? Did you think such as a militia is going to be organized and mobilized by a group of people walking around with semiautomatic weapons slung over their shoulders? Americans can not even agree on Daylight Savings time and you think they are going to all fall into line in some quasi military unit?
Last I knew, no one ever invaded Switzerland, nor even threatened to invade Switzerland
This citizen “militia” that gun huggers talk about is strictly a fantasy based on too many Chuck Norris and John Wayne movies, as I said, Americans can not agree on anything and yet they think they are going to come together and man the barricades
I see now we are back to the strict constructionist “arguement, and as I said, even Jefferson, the leading advocate of such, abandoned that when he purchased Louisiana
countryboy
Verified User
Yeah, libs are tyrannical that way.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
maybe you're confused, or simply misconstruing what is meant by 'subject to the jurisdiction' and trying to equate that with owing allegiance to any other country................but if you mean what you truly are saying with regards to that, what is your position on sovereign citizens claiming to be outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts?You're a felon? No surprise.
But your attempts are so clumsy that it reveals why your Reich is failing.
Let us remind the sentient beings here;
{
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.}
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...
Your temper tantrum won't save the "Great Replacement" plot of your party.
The damage you've done with open borders won't be undone, but further damage stops now.
Your hive will have to cook up another scheme to destroy America. This one is over.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
all of the above shows the masterful job that Democrats did of dismantling the essence of liberty and freedom, by denying the right and ability of the people to organize and maintain their own well regulated militias, then further destroying that independent spirit by telling them that they are weak and powerless against the government. congrats, traitor
They're nuts.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and the japanese H1B visa worker at a corporate office in Denver is not subject to the jurisdiction of the American government?
In terms as explained by Sen. Trumbull (who wrote the section) that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country, no they are not.
This doesn't mean they are subject to our laws. In fact those who argue for Anchor Baby rights are claiming that aliens are not subject to our laws.
I guess you are going to ignore all the other statements by Turmbull and pretend that is the only one he made.
Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, "Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Mr. Trumbull answered, "Undoubtedly," and asked, "is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?"Mr. Cowan replied, "The children of German parents are citizens;but Germans are not Chinese." Mr. Trumbull rejoined: "The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European." Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, "without distinction of color," should be omitted as unnecessary, and said: "The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent,
and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born."
And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning
Did you imagine that you had a point?
That has nothing to do with law abiding versus illegal. What you of the radical left are attempting to to simply erase our border and render us unable to decide who comes into this nation.
“dismantling the essence of liberty,” got to love it, it’s beautiful how one can take an abstract concept and reduce it to a bumper sticker cliche, classic
And from what we have been seeing nearly daily, mass shootings and school shootings, that “well regulated militia” ain’t all that regulated
I see. So you are admitting that your comment had no point since you were the one that brought up Trumbull's statement. I only showed that the rest of his statements show he expected all persons born in the US to be citizens even if their parents were citizens of a foreign country.
Sen. Trumbull was clear that this is in regard to people who don't owe allegiance to other nations. That he acknowledges that it covers Chinese and Gypsies is utterly irrelevant and a clear attempt at obfuscation on your part.
I am curious as to what you think Trumbull thinks the allegiance of German parents are when he states their children would be US citizens if born in the US. He also states that the children of all other countries would be citizens. Trying to pull a single sentence out of context that is later clarified by him during debate on changes to the amendment doesn't exactly work in the real world.
If you really want to use the dissent in Kim Wong Ark then you have to remove the US citizenship of everyone in the US that also carries the passport of another country. Good luck with that.
Trumbull said the Chinese and Gypsies are just like Germans when it comes to the amendment as written since it makes no distinction as to country of origin of parents.
