WND Forum 14th Amendmend Shoot-out!

WorldNetDaily Presidential Eligibility Forum Shoot-Out: ~Oct. 2011

reply to Straight-Shooter (A.R. Nash) by PhoxarRed:

You’re frantic, as delusion encounters reality. I invite any reader to evaluate my account of what the  historical record proves the current settled meaning of the Law of the Land is. Check with an  immigration attorney, a career historian, the State Department or seek out and read the consensus of  the legal community since the American Revolution.
They will quickly find you are spouting nonsense – all based on the imagined preeminent authority of  one Obama-objecting partisan (yourself) who hasn’t even read the Constitution, but has somehow  expertly interpreted it infallibly.
Our Constitution having been based on his thoughts, work, and notes, James Madison, termed by his  fellow Convention delegates, the “Father of the Constitution,” informed us that Allegiance is real and  that in the United States, it’s determined by place of birth.

I leave it to the readers to judge what excesses of narcissistic self-aggrandizement could lead you to  believe that not having read the Constitution, you are never-the-less qualified to infallibly declare what  it MUST mean, contrary to the testimony of it’s leading author.
The 14th Amendment IS THE CONSTITUTION and it’s specific language (“ARE”), along with the  judiciary’s current settled interpretation of “under-the-jurisdiction-thereof” clearly establishes as fact  that jus soli birthright citizenship was officially the citizenship tradition of the United States from the  ratification and going forward.
Imposing your own extra-legal definitions upon standard legal terms, like “allegiance”, or just dismissing them as illegitimate through their centuries of settled usage, makes your entire body of  extra-legal ramblings read like a speculative attempt to formulate answers for likely questions on an upcoming test, without ever having attended a class or read the textbook!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reply by Straight Shooter:  It isn’t necessary to read nor memorize the entire Constitution to understand the meaning of the word “natural”, just as it isn’t necessary to read the entire Bible to understand the Lord’s Prayer.   There is nothing else in the Constitution related to the subject of Presidential eligibility so why do you pretend that anything else is relevant?  False logic.

Explain this, if you substitute “natural born citizen” for “citizen” in the 14th Amendment (as you do in  your warped equivalency universe) then it would read: “All persons born in the United States, or NATURALIZED,…are natural born citizens of the United States,…”.  It’s transparently false that naturalized citizens are natural born citizens.

If, like many “experts” you embrace the delusion that ALL citizens except the naturalized are natural-born, based on  the erroneous assumption that the Constitution’s framers applied the monarchical feudal principle of jus soli subjecthood to national citizenship in the United States, the result is that when you apply such an “expert” interpretation to the 14th Amendment it totally falls apart!  That means that all who hold and promote such a view are WRONG!  No matter who they are or what they “know”.

You shout from the mountain-top that I, being an ignorant nobody, must be holding erroneous opinions, but you aren’t willing to acknowledge the possibility that your hollowed legal authorities could also be doing the same.  Yet history is replete with examples of all the experts being wrong.  Why do you ignore  history?  Why do you ignore human fallibility?  Because when the stakes are this high, unbiased  reason is the first casualty.  Understand this, I do not interpret the Constitution, the English language  interprets it.  Neither you nor anyone else has the authority to change the meaning of words, whether  the words be “natural”, “jurisdiction”, or “marriage”

It’s been falsely claimed that “Allegiance is real and in the UnitedStates, it’s determined by place of  birth.”  I can also claim that that is true but it has no impact on the basis of citizenship because allegiance is not citizenship.   Allegiance based on where one was born and raised is separate from citizenship inherited from one’s parents, but totally compatible for the 99% of Americans born in America.

“…the judiciary’s current settled interpretation of ‘under-the-jurisdiction-thereof’…”.  You either  changed the subject from referring to the 14th Amendment, or you are more ignorant that you pretend to be, because the Amendment doesn’t contain the words “under the jurisdiction..”, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you.  Its language is “SUBJECT TO the jurisdiction thereof”. Not “under” nor “within” the jurisdiction.  Those terms refer to geographical boundaries of juridiction, as in federal territory, or state borders.
Sheer power of government is not synonymous with legal authority. Imposition of the government’s will by use of force is  different from expecting and requiring obedience, i.e. subjection, to it.  Erroneous ambiguity results from not recognizing the difference.

Under the 14th Amendment only legal immigrants (-like all U.S. citizens) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United  States, not guests, not foreign students.  I’ve stated that fact a dozen times and you have not yet attempted to refute it, yet you pretend the issue doesn’t even exist.  What’s wrong with you?   You’re approach to debate is mockery, insults, intimidation, deflection, diversion, dishonest conclusions, illogical associations, and deceptive omissions.

I point those things out and you fail to dispute them, instead you resort to heaping more of the same into the so-called debate.
Your command of language gives your words an air of authority, but all dishonest dis-information  propagandists seem to know what they’re talking about even as they go about the business of pulling the wool over the eyes of the indiscriminate reader.

The only issue that’s relevant is that natural citizens have no dual-citizenship resulting from one  parent being a foreigner since their parents are both Americans.  If they aren’t then their child is not a  natural citizen but a statutory citizen or a constitutional citizen.


“jus soli birthright citizenship was officially the citizenship tradition of the United States”, -true, but  only in regard to children of legal resident immigrants, not children of foreign diplomats, nor foreign visitors or foreign students (or natural citizens either).  And it isn’t a birthright.  It’s a constitutional right that once did not even exist.  No legal right is a birthright because a birthright is based on a natural right and legal citizenship is not a naural right.  Only natural citizenship is a natural right of birth because it’s based on natural inheritance by the principle of natural membership, not government laws.  Those requiring law in order to be citizens are those with  foreign parentage.  Those without foreign parentage are natural citizen and no law makes them such.  They are what they are by nature.                *a.n.
With no knowledge of U.S. code to back me up, I’ve asserted for quite some time now, based on common sense, that legal immigrants are different from non-immigrant aliens, and that only immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus recognized as producing citizen children.  I’ve finally been pointed  to the U.S. Code that codifies the principle that I’ve claimed must be true.


(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following  classes of non-immigrant aliens—
(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;
(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a  bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United  States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent with  section 1184 (l)[1] of this title at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic  high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in an accredited language training  program in the United States,…  (end).

It’s impossible to argue that non-immigrant aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of Washington otherwise all aliens must be considered to be subject, but that would mean that the wording of the 14th Amendment includes a requirement that is universally automatically true and therefore unnecessary of even being stated since it’s automatically assumed that children of foreign representatives are exempt by the Law of Nations.  That would mean that it was totally superfluous and unnecessary language added for no good logical reason.
To proclaim that all born within the U.S. borders are citizens via the 14th Amendment requires that  all aliens be equal, but the U.S. Code is exhaustively clear in defining them as not being equal.  It  EXcludes foreign students from the definition of immigrants and thus excludes them from U.S. jurisdiction.
What does U.S. jurisdiction entail?  It entails the authority of the federal government to strip men residing in the U.S. of their legal, constitutional rights and induct them into the United States military, put them through hell in boot camp, and send them to their death in battle.  THAT is the full jurisdiction that citizens and immigrants are subject to because they share the responsibility to defend the nation and ensure it survival.

That proves that Obama was not a 14th Amendment jus soli U.S. citizen through birth to his alien-student father. In fact, if Obama had been born a hundred years ago, between 1907 and 1922, his mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship and acquired that of her husband, making their child solely a British subject.  But in time that national policy/law was replaced with the right of American women to pass their citizenship to their children though they be born of a foreign national.  Thus his citizenship is solely through his mother via some clause in the U.S. code that I haven’t yet seen identified, -assuming that it exists.  If it doesn’t, then there is no basis on which he can claim U.S. citizenship.


TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
§ 1401. Nationals and Citizens of United States At Birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (14th Amendment language)

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of  whom are Citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
Clause “c” implies by negative deduction that a child born to U.S. citizens is not a U.S. citizen at birth unless one of the parents has lived in the U.S.  That situation would be related to children born abroad to citizen-parents who also were born abroad and grew up abroad and never lived in the United States.   Such a case indicates that their child would not be recognized by the U.S. government as being a citizen though it doesn’t actually put that in words.
Such a child is in a kind of citizenship limbo as its attachment to the country of its parents’ citizenship lacks any direct connection, while its citizenship to the country of its birth, as well as its parents’ birth, is viewed as nearly equal to natural citizenship, the tug of war between the two jurisdictions gives the nation of residency top position, and the U.S. government is not willing to claim such children as its own.  That’s where the line is drawn regarding the dissolution of natural citizenship due to an unnatural situation.

The citizenship of the parents could be either natural or statutory but birth abroad to citizen parents who were also born abroad means that such a child has no physical or psychological connection to the U.S. as their homeland since it was not the home country of their birth nor that of their parents. It has long been U.S. and British law that citizenship shall not pass to the off-spring of a citizen father who has never lived in the country of his nationality.  It such cases, jus sanguinis no longer applies.  Instead, the immigration law of the country of birth applies.  [It would be really bad if such a child was born in a place like Antarctica because then they would be a citizen of no country.]

by a.r. nash  http://obama–nation.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: