Correction: Judge Lewis Sanford (not Stanford) auto correct struck again.<quoted text>James Madison said it was the most certain criterion of allegiance. But Play Justice apparently does not like that answer since he chronically ignores it and whine that I didn't answer his pointless question. Why did they? Lewis Stanford addressed that question in Lynch v. Clarke. Go read for yourself the passage about the only standard that existed at the time. However, it doesn't really matter the reason because it is historical fact that birthright citizenship was the rule. Even in the case of Look Tin Sing, Justice Field lamented the inadequacy of the jus soli rule but was resigned to the reality that it was the law.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#174303 Oct 8, 2013
#174304 Oct 8, 2013
Tell me, in your own words, how does that "rule" make any sense with regards to protecting the country. It doesn't, it opens the door nice and wide for a usurper. Hmmm?
#174305 Oct 8, 2013
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#174306 Oct 8, 2013
All the states at the time of adoption of the constitution recognized birthright citizenship. According to the states, a person was a natural born citizen of the state if born in the state. But birfoons fantasize that the founders decided to change the meaning of natural born citizen but forgot to tell anyone about it. And then after the constitution was ratified, everybody just forgot about it: people born in the US were regarded as natural born citizens by common people, legal scholars, and courts. And nobody, not even members of Congress, knew the real definition of "jurisdiction" because it was not revealed to humankind until a voice told Dufus Dale that only citizens in the US are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
And the birfoons wonder why no one takes them seriously.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#174308 Oct 8, 2013
It prevents a foreign noble or monarch from becoming eligible for the Presidency through naturalization, which is what the founders were particularly concerned about.
Incidentally, a person born in the US of alien parents, if elected president, would not be a usurper because he would be lawfully eligible as a natural born citizen per the jus soli rule. Door slammed shut.
“Facts trump speculation”
Since: Dec 08
#174309 Oct 8, 2013
BTW, the jus soli citizenship rule was not intended to "protect the country" from usurpers to the Presidency. It was the citizenship rule used by all of the states. It was the same rule used in England and at the time of drafting, France.(Jus sanguinis citizenship was not proposed in France until 1791.)
It is the eligibility clause that was designed to prevent a foreigner from becoming naturalized and thereby gaining the presidency. Persons born on the soil were never considered foreigners. That was the rule the founders had lived under all of their lives.
#174312 Oct 9, 2013
Yea, and Clinton will be remembered as the president between two Bushs.
#174313 Oct 9, 2013
So the people of the USA through their government have established a National Park system, and what the government "gives" and provides the people, the government has the power to deny and take away from the people. Wonder how thats going to work with our healthcare once the government is the only game we have access to? We already know the answer to this by looking at the VA and Medicare/Medicaid. They, the government, have been reducing access and reimbursements to doctors for decades now, providing inadequate care for our veterans in mediocre facilities, all the while as we watch the programs head towards insolvency. What the government giveth, the government can restrict and taketh away. This is the model cradle to grave, dependency seeking democrats want for our free people. CONTROL!!!
#174314 Oct 9, 2013
If General Patton were alive he'd slap your face!
#174315 Oct 9, 2013
The Katharine Gun Case
February 25, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/p9w8kwa
Katharine Gun, a British former government employee, faced two years imprisonment in England for the "crime" of telling the truth. She was charged with leaking an embarrassing U.S. intelligence memo indicating that the U.S. had mounted a spying "surge" against U.N. delegations in early 2003 in an effort to win approval of the Iraq war resolution. The leaked memo was big news in parts of the world.
England has no First Amendment that might have protected Ms. Gun. It does have a repressive Official Secrets Act, under which she was being prosecuted by the Blair government. http://www.accuracy.org/1104-the-katharine-gu...
When Truth Tried to Stop War
by Ray McGovern CIA Ret./ http://tinyurl.com/axzmlu6 / January 31, 2013
Ten years ago, Katharine Gun, then a 28-year-old British intelligence officer, saw an e-mailed memo from the U.S. National Security Agency George Bush and Tony Blair.(Photo: Mario Tama/EPA)(NSA) that confirmed for her in black and white the already widespread suspicion that the U.S. and U.K. were about to launch war against Iraq on false pretenses.
Doing what she could to head off what she considered, correctly, an illegal war of aggression, she printed a copy of the memo and arranged for a friend to give it to the London Observer.ďI have always ever followed my conscience,Ē she said, explaining what drove her to take such a large risk.
Those early months of 2003 were among the worst of times Ė and not just because the U.S. and U.K. leaders were perverting the post-World War II structure that those same nations designed to stop aggressive wars, but because the vast majority of U.S. and U.K. institutions including the major news organizations and the nationsí legislatures were failing miserably to provide any meaningful check or balance.
The common excuse from politicians, bureaucrats, editors and other opinion leaders was that there was no way the momentum toward war could be stopped, so why take on the career damage that would result from getting in the way. And if Ms. Gun were made of lesser stuff, she might have hidden behind a similar self-serving excuse or found solace in other comforting rationalizations, like the government must know what itís doing, or what do I, a Mandarin-to-English translator, know about Iraq.
But Katharine Gun could smell a rat, as well as the sulfur of war, and she would not put her career and comfort ahead of the slaughter and devastation that war inevitably brings to innocent people. In that, she distinguished herself, just as many others in positions of authority disgraced themselves.
#174316 Oct 9, 2013
EXCLUSIVE: International War Whistleblowers Tell Why They Exposed Their Governments / http://tinyurl.com/5hkw6z / September 9, 2004
In a Democracy Now! U.S. exclusive, two former intelligence officials from Britain and Denmark discuss why they blew the whistle on their governments in relation to the war in Iraq. Katharine Gun is a former British employee who leaked details of a secret U.S. spy operation on UN Security Council members in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Major Frank Grevil is a former military intelligence officer from Denmark who was fired for leaking classified reports that showed no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq. He currently faces charges for breaching the countryís official information law
Translator turns 'whistle-blower'
The daughter of a university lecturer, Katharine Gun was thrust into the limelight after being accused of leaking top secret information.
http://tinyurl.com/4d9sno / 26 February, 2004
The 29-year-old from the Regency Cotswold town of Cheltenham was a little-known translator working at the government's communications headquarters GCHQ.
But in March last year she was arrested, accused of breaching the Official Secrets Act by leaking an e-mail to the Observer newspaper from US spies asking British counterparts to tap the telephones of UN Security Council members.
In June 2003 she was sacked from her post.
She always admitted leaking the e-mail but argued she had "only ever followed her conscience" to prevent an "illegal war against Iraq".
The revelations contained in the leaked memo made her a cause celebre in the US.
The spy who wouldn't keep a secret
In the year since she leaked an explosive email about spying on UN diplomats, GCHQ translator Katharine Gun has been arrested, charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act and transformed into an international cause celebre. As the case against her was dropped yesterday, Oliver Burkeman and Richard Norton-Taylor met an unlikely rebel / 25 February 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/lxktnbx
Working for the intelligence agencies is rarely as glamorous as it sounds, and until last year - when everything changed for ever - Katharine Gun often found it quite mundane. On Friday January 31 2003, at the high-security GCHQ compound on the outskirts of Cheltenham, she was doing her job as usual, translating Mandarin Chinese into English, when an email from America came to her attention.
"I thought,'Good God, that's pretty outrageous'," she recalls. She printed out a copy, put it in her bag, took it home, and spent the weekend stewing about it. She didn't discuss it with anyone. On the Monday she was still just as angry - "indignation was fuelling me on," she remembers - and so she passed the email to a friend on the outside, whom she knew was in touch with journalists. But she heard nothing more, and almost forgot about it./ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/2...
#174317 Oct 9, 2013
Diplomat's Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies behind Iraq War
December 15, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ye8w94
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr. Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr. Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Mr. Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.
It shows Mr. Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbors or the UK or the US," he added.
Mr. Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr. Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.
Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.
#174318 Oct 9, 2013
Romney PROVES Newt Gingrich is a closet RINO!
How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate / 10/20/2011 / http://tinyurl.com/7yztznx
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: Thatís not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but Iím just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasnít true.
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. Thatís what Iím saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
October 1, 1989 / http://tinyurl.com/8xb6rd9
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea
March 30th, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/26xm72p
EDITOR'S NOTE: An analysis of this comment by President Barack Obama was published on April 1, 2010. After it appeared, the Heritage Foundation's communications office contacted us to argue that our rating of Mostly True was too generous to the president. We did some additional reporting to review our ruling. Our second round of reporting -- primarily talking to conservative policy experts outside of Heritage -- solidified our initial conclusions. Below is the updated version of our story, which retains the rating of Mostly True, published April 26, 2010.
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan
Feb 23, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/amcg2tz
In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
#174319 Oct 9, 2013
Your rightwing idols like Limbaugh and Cheney got five deferments to avoid service for the Vietnam war.
Who Picked Powell?
Two Liberal who ran up the deficits 12 years of Reagan and Daddy Bush who never used the VETO.
Colin Powell endorses Obama for second term
Oct 25, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/9melusp
(Reuters)- Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed Barack Obama in his bid for re-election, citing the Democratic president's efforts to wind down the war in Afghanistan and tackling terrorism.
"And so I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on," the Republican, who also backed Obama in 2008, told "CBS This Morning."
The move comes just days after Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney clashed over foreign policy in the third and last presidential debate ahead of the November 6 election.
#174320 Oct 9, 2013
Military Donations Favoring Obama
August 15, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/n5gpura
WASHINGTON - U.S. Soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous White House campaigns in which military donations tended to favor Republicans, a nonpartisan group reported Aug. 14.
Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.
The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who has never served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.
Obama has opposed the war in Iraq and says he would withdraw combat troops within 16 months. McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war, saying he would withdraw the troops only when conditions on the ground warrant it.
#174321 Oct 9, 2013
But Ron Paul surpassed John McCain in military donations.
#174322 Oct 9, 2013
Paul proved our military rank and file wanted out of these wars.
Since: Aug 08
#174323 Oct 9, 2013
Yeah, that was before Barack Obama showered Libya with cruise missiles at over a million dollars a pop.
John McCain is a criminal too.
#174325 Oct 9, 2013
States? LMAO! Time to move the goal post, huh? LMAO! No one was talking about the states, lil dip. Just more of your BS. bonehead
#174326 Oct 9, 2013
Too much SPAM! Ahem.....idiot from NY!! Posts just like Smellen, hmmm.
Add your comments below
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||1 min||TheIndependentMaj...||1,251,221|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||5 min||ritedownthemiddle||53,950|
|Should we really be OK with the surgical remova...||6 min||sarabella||92|
|Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10)||25 min||mahz||52,020|
|Tony Rezko's great friends, BH Obama & Valerie ...||42 min||Hillary luvs Rezko||4|
|Dear Abby July 3, 2015||50 min||PEllen||1|
|Amy July 3, 2015||53 min||PEllen||1|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||2 hr||Michael Satterfield||99,892|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC