The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story
<quoted text>quite the contrary, he was born a citizen of his father's nation, the Constitution hasn't any control over that fact. As you know all persons born subject of other nations, must be naturalized, for citizenship in the US.
He wasn't born a subject of another nation per US law, under the US Constitution. US law is concerned with who is a citizen or who is not a citizen per US law, and is not dependent on foreign law. Foreign law has no force or effect within the US. The US is a sovereign nation, not a British colony. Sorry, British law cannot determine who is a US citizen.
Justus Liebig wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you for admitting that he was not born a foreign citizen "under the Constitution." If not born a foreign citizen "under the constitution" then he was born a British subject under British law, which has no force or effect in the US and no bearing on citizenship of persons born in the US. Play law doesn't count. It crashes and burns every time. Do you have a play justice robe to go with your toy gavel? <quoted text>
<quoted text>To be born a citizen of the US, one must be born exclusively "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply stating, not subject to any foreign power. With $2.00 and the JAG's opinion, you might buy a beer.
Dream on. That is your fantasy. The law holds that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
<quoted text> The old lack of standing excuse, AGAIN, huh? Apparently no one has the standing to challenge the US's illegal usurper pResident. One of these days the Republicans will find their common sense and balls. Until then, we shall all suffer immensely.
Sorry, birfoon, but standing is actually required by the Constitution, rather unlike the birfoon fantasy two citizen parent rule.
<quoted text> Says the birfoon who believes municipal law in the US is unconstitutional. Play robes and a toy gavel do not make Play Justice Dale anything but a delusional fool living in a play world. <quoted text>
<quoted text> Yucaipa seems to be in southern California. Both Watts and East LA are located in southern California. Get the point? You are either north or south of that imaginary Mason-Dixon line across this nation. I would say you are south.
Since when was the Mason Dixon Line imaginary? Since when did the Mason Dixon line extend across the US?
I guess you slept through History class before you dropped out of school, huh? Your lack of edumacation is showing again, birfer.
<quoted text> You consider $5M to a charity a stunt? Wonder how the charities feel about that? Omama didn't "cowboy up"! sad very sad
(1) when a supporter of your political opponent makes you an offer, it is common sense to ignore it; (2) It is not a good precedent for the President of the United States to do something for an offer of money by an individual, even if the money is for charity; (3) if Trump wanted to give $5 million to charity, he could give it without making an "offer" to Obama.
<quoted text> Here is a decision by the US Army Judge Advocate General's office that says that a US-born child whose father was a German citizen who was never naturalized is a Natural Born US Citizen. And it specifically says that dual citizenship does not affect the situation. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/0... Moreover, sadly you have not been following CONSERVATIVE legal principles. Conservatives have always said that foreign laws do not affect, and cannot be allowed to affect US laws. And in the case of dual citizenship that is exactly right, US law does not allow foreign laws to affect US Citizen status (or as the JAG ruling shows, NBC status), and yet you think that they do. Well, that is giving entirely too much power to foreign laws, a most non-conservative thing to do. And besides, it is not the law, foreign citizenship laws simply have NO effect on US citizens in the USA.
Foreign nation's citizenship laws do not have any legal effect upon a person born in the United States to alien parents until such time that person chooses to reside in that foreign nation. Moreover, that same person is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States while residing in the United States. No foreign nation has any jurisdiction over its citizens while they reside in the United States.
Without entering upon this subject (which properly belongs to a general treatise upon public law), it may be truly said that no nation is bound to respect the laws of another nation made in regard to the subjects of the latter which are nonresidents. The obligatory force of such laws of any nation cannot extend beyond its own territories.••• Whatever may be the intrinsic or obligatory force of such laws upon such persons, if they should return to their native country, they can have none in other nations wherein they reside. Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.” Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(quoting Justice Story, Commentaries of the Conflict of Laws (section 22)(1834)
<quoted text> He wasn't born a subject of another nation per US law, under the US Constitution. US law is concerned with who is a citizen or who is not a citizen per US law, and is not dependent on foreign law. Foreign law has no force or effect within the US. The US is a sovereign nation, not a British colony. Sorry, British law cannot determine who is a US citizen. <quoted text>
if foreign law has no force, why do we have a naturalization process?
<quoted text> Here's yet another issue on which the Supreme Court disagrees with birfoons. Why are birfoons always wrong?
Birfoons do like to agree with the supreme court when it suits them. Like the re-affirmation of the 2nd amendment. Oh, they love the supremes on that one.
And do we hear the so-called "libtards" (rogue tm reg'd) go on and on about that one? For months, years, criticize the judgement? No. Why? Because the Supreme court has spoken and not everyone will agree, but hey, you go on with life. Birthers and tea partyers can't do that, they stamp their little feet and turn blue instead. Pathetic.
<quoted text> (1) when a supporter of your political opponent makes you an offer, it is common sense to ignore it; (2) It is not a good precedent for the President of the United States to do something for an offer of money by an individual, even if the money is for charity; (3) if Trump wanted to give $5 million to charity, he could give it without making an "offer" to Obama.
Do you think repeating the same old shat over and over makes one bit of difference? I guess you missed the point. It was a challenge to Omama and Omama declined. Makes no sense if his papers are all legit! What is Omama hiding? Something, that's for sure.
<quoted text>not so, the law states, you must be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution. Those born here that are subjects of, or subject to any foreign power, do not acquire US citizenship.
Every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen. Everyone who is in the USA even if only visiting is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA except for foreign diplomats.
Because it's incorrect and misplaced punctuation. How can pause after "problems"? You didn't write those perfectly-written depositions when discussing the constitution. You are incapable of even knowing where to place a comma.