Three-way Natural Born Citizen Shoot-out! I win!
June 25, 2014 1 Comment
~ LET TRUTH PREVAIL THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL ~
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
“The citizen “parents” requirement is needed to cut off any jus sanguinis allegiance claims and the birth in the United States (or its equivalent) requirement is needed to cut off any jus soli allegiance claims over the child by any foreign power.”
I’ll now address brick-wall Mario.
That is as wrong as wrong can be. Why? Because the issue of presidential eligibility was one of national security, -NOT foreign sovereignty!
THE UNITED STATES did not give a damn about respecting foreign sovereignty rights over people otherwise there would never have been a revolution since the colonies would have continued to respect the sovereignty of the British Crown over them!. THEY RESPECTED IT NOT AT ALL. THEY HATED IT!
You resort to using the term “allegiance claims” (by foreign governments) -which Americans gave no respect, -or they would have all still been British. The king had a major “allegiance claim” on all of them and they told him to go to Hell!.
Foreign parents brought foreign alienage to an American family due to foreign roots, and connections. Not to forget possible foreign loyalty. Such foreign influence by parents or “a” parent was the entire issue.
So this side hypothesis about sovereignty is totally incompatible with that truth.
“…any allegiance claims by any foreign nation through either jus sanguinis or jus soli,…” [citizenship by descent or by native-birth]
” It is only with such unity of citizenship in and allegiance to the United States that a person is born with sole and absolute allegiance to the United States and not subject to any foreign power,”
Ridiculous! No baby ever born was born with what you call allegiance, much less “absolute allegiance“. You don’t explain it because it is unexplainable!
Then you toss in, like an afterthought: “and not subject to any foreign power,” when THAT is the whole ball of wax!!! And even it is pure doctrinal fiction since children (minors) had never been subject to governments. Only to their fathers.
You will never be able to explain how an American father (and mother) are subject to a foreign power merely by being on foreign soil.
They remain subject to their own government and must obey its laws and orders. Otherwise they would be considered to be subjects of that foreign government and not foreigners there as guests. All governments’ laws can and do affect different classes of people based on whether they are laws that restrict what one can do (universally) or mandate what one must do, selectively. Everyone in every country, native or foreigner, must obey the laws that forbid certain behavior, including ambassadors. But only the members of the country are subject to laws that mandate that its citizens and permanent residents must do certain things and must not do other thing relating to foreign governments or groups of criminals or terrorists.
And a baby born to them is also not subject to that foreign authority, -being free of any “allegiance claims” over the child by any foreign power.
It is the retained sovereign right of all American parents to pass their national membership to their own children born anywhere in the world. Same with the British who have followed our lead.
Slarti wrote: “I will continue to believe that, “naturalized at birth” or not, such people (American children born abroad) are natural born citizens in the sense of Article II.”
It is not a matter of anyone’s “belief”. IT IS A NATURAL FACT!
Understand this; the Congress that declared all children of American fathers to be natural born citizens was also the same Congress that wrote and passed the BILL OF RIGHTS. ~RIGHTS!!!
Including the RIGHT to pass a husband / father’s nationality to his ENTIRE FAMILY regardless of where they exited the womb, -within American borders or foreign borders. -that means both wife and children!!!
Wife…foreign born foreigner… she becomes an American by the blood of her husband, -the man that she became attached to through holy matrimony. Book of Genesis, God declares: They shall be ONE flesh.”
Children… foreign born… they’re American by the blood of their father. NOT BY STATUTE! BY BLOOD. Statutes only serve to defend & declare one’s Blood Right. They are declarative in nature; not determinative.
That right does not end at the water’s edge! Only traitors to American Liberty continue to proclaim that it does. TRAITORS!
Each American possesses a share of the common sovereignty of the nation. That share is a part of their American character and goes with them everywhere in the world.
Their sovereignty over their own children, and America’s as well, does not end at borders or coastlines. That means that their jus sanguinis Blood Right cannot be abrogated by anything other than death, or self-expatriation.
Even treason is not a legitimate basis to separate an American from his citizenship, just as there is no legitimate basis to nullify his children’s right to the citizenship of their parents. They are born with that right and no neo-imperialist has any basis to claim that they are aliens because of invisible geographic demarcations beyond which they exited their mother’s womb.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. replied: Mr. Nash,
The U.S. respects the reasonable allegiance claims of sovereign foreign nations just like the U.S. expects those foreign nations to respect the reasonable allegiance claims of the sovereign United States. [Yes, but “reasonable” means that they are blood-based and not birth-location based.]
In the eyes of the United States, a child born in a foreign nation’s territory that follows jus soli is as much a citizen of the foreign nation as a child born in the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[Such birth-placed based citizenship means nothing. Ask Ted Cruz what his disavowed Canadian citizenship means to him. It is the nation in which one is raised to which one becomes attached, and loyal.]
The moment a child is born in a foreign territory, the jurisdiction of that nation attaches to that child [HOW? HOW? HOW?] which means that the nation then has the full power and authority to prescribe rules over that child.
The nation has no legal authority to prescribe anything over one’s children within a lawful and working marriage unless it is a dictatorship. Babies are NOT subjects of governments, you fool! The parents are sovereign and their sovereignty is the foundation of any legitimate government that their forefathers’ created and imbued with a portion of their sovereignty.
“Your attitude that the U.S. can do whatever it wants in the world without respecting the valid and reasonable reciprocal claims made by other nations is plain silly. [They ARE NOT VALID IF NOT BASED ON NATURAL RIGHTS, MEANING BLOOD RELATIONSHIPS.]
Also, you insist that babies do not have allegiance. Unfortunately for you, the Framers did not get your baby memo when they required that future Presidents and Commanders be natural born citizens.“
[??????? -the cement has hardened in his brain. He pretends that allegiance has meaning in relationship to babies but to save his life he could not explain what the hell that means.]
Mario expounded: Prior to the Cable Act of 1922, [a child’s] parents were both citizens by both spouses being citizens prior to marriage or an alien woman marrying a U.S. citizen husband. After the Cable Act, alien women no longer became U.S. citizens upon marriage to a U.S. citizen husband.
Rather, such alien adult women had to naturalize on their own prior to or after the marriage in order to be a U.S. citizen at the time of her child’s birth. But while the Cable Act allowed women spouses to have their own citizenship, surely the Act did not nor could it constitutionally create a new definition of Article II’s natural born citizen clause, which had always required that both of a child’s parents be citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
[that is correct because a child’s nationality must be from one single source, not two, otherwise the result is an unnatural political hybrid citizen with dual citizenship in two nations, two loyalties, and competing obligations.]
Here’s a shocking hypothetical scenario:
In 1922 the Cable Act was passed to restore the American citizenship rights of women who married or would marry foreigners. Due to the Naturalization Act of 1907, American women lost their citizenship when marrying a man from a foreign country with which the U.S. had a reciprocal agreement regarding such women.
That ceased with the Cable Act and they no longer lost their citizenship. A surprising turn of events could have occurred at that juncture in time.
Just before it, if a foreign woman married an American, she herself automatically became an American as well, via marriage naturalization. Thus both parents were American and could produce a child who was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.
Just after the Act, the foreign bride would not become an American and would have to naturalize in order to become a citizen.
Suppose they had a child. He would be part American and part alien, and thus not a natural born citizen. He would be a statutory dual citizen and thus ineligible to be President. Same circumstance but different laws.
A foreign bride who married her groom a day before the Cable Act went into effect became an American while one who married her American groom the day after would have remained an alien.
The child of one couple could be President while the child of the other could be everything but.
The door shut on a specific day at a specific hour. After that, everything changed for the foreign bride and their eventual child, -but not really since almost no one ever becomes President. The odds are horrendous. “All of the stars have to align”.
Would that be like hitting four hole-in-one shots in a row, or what?
Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance (1873) 17, 18; U.S. Foreign Relations, 1873-74, pp. 1191, 1192.”
“The [adult] child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father. The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it.
What shear ignorance! The principle of connection that fosters a right of citizenship and a reciprocal gift of citizenship is not a lame-ass old British policy of assigning one to subjection to the king for life due simply to where one’s mother happened to be when she gave birth. Duty to a foreign nation is based on real connections that form during life as one grows up in a country as a permanent member of society.
The founders of America rejected mere birth alone as a basis of nationality at the national level but were of two minds at the State level which generally continued to provide citizenship for all the native-born of immigrants. No nation has any claim on babies or minor children. Notice how he failed to distinguish between minor and adult children? total confusion! Absolutely muddled communication.
“Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the child is that of the father so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.”
[~the ADULT child owes the nation where he lives his life and where he grew up a debt of national defense military service if male and if needed. That is what he is referring to.]
The quotes from the Executive Departments (1873) should make every American puke.
“The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.”
No child ever born in the history of the modern Western World was ever subject to government duties. They were and are subject solely to their parents. The statement only becomes true at adulthood, -which he failed to even mention. That was probably because he didn’t have a clue of understanding of the breadth of the subject he was pontificating on. Only policy rules. Doctrines.
“The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States,…applies to the children of American fathers born without [outside] the jurisdiction of the United States, -and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it.”
More verbal idiocy! First, “to subject children to duties”??? [-only true of adults, “children” being an ambiguous term]
Next, there is no “principle” involved AT ALL! It is purely policy, doctrine, convention, tradition, custom, accepted practice, -perhaps not even law.
Only Nature produces principles. And they are incorporated into human law, -but belonging based on place-of-birth is not one of them.
All that matters eventually is where a child grows up and what a young man chooses at adulthood.
He chooses where his loyalty lies, -not government policy, -but he owes national defense service to the country of his choice if he chooses a parent’s non-resident nation and moves there before reaching draft age. Otherwise he owes allegiance to two nations, meaning military service duty.
(Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance, 1873)
Wilted Rose quoted the Naturalization Act of 1795: …”and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” -[that] describes both the children of naturalized aliens and the children of citizens born out of the country as “citizens” in the aggregate, implying their citizen status is equivalent, instead of addressing their citizenship separately.
Let’s parse your words: “implying their citizen status is equivalent”; -“status” is key, as it relates to their rights as citizens. Their rights were identical.
What was NOT identical was the nature and origin of their citizenship.
One was a citizen as an allowance of law, while the other was by Right of Blood, -jus sanguinis.
But, like I’ve explained previously, even that is an inaccurate characterization. That is because they ALSO were made citizens “by Right of Blood”, -just not their own blood. It was their father’s “blood”.
His “foreign blood” had been replaced with “American blood” via natural-i-z-a-t-i-o-n!
He had become a new natural citizen by the standard legal fiction inherited from Britain.
Thus, his children were then viewed as now possessing his new “American blood” or character.
Thus, via the principle of jus sanguinis, they also were deemed to be Americans since they could not have a “blood nature” (political nature) that was not that of their father.
The citizenship of Americans born abroad was addressed separately in the first Nat. Act (1790) because the founders wanted to protect the natural right of all American fathers to pass their natural American citizenship to their children regardless of geography or borders, and thus secure their right to serve as President.
The words they used served absolutely no other purpose on earth and that was why they mandated that they recognized as natural born citizens.
“As for children born citizens overseas, the First Congress explicitly called them natural born and the SCOTUS ruled that later naturalization acts continued this practice implicitly. “
Wilted Rose said…”shall be considered as natural born Citizens” is not explicit at all. [she mis-read]
You know as well as I do that “shall be considered as” is a term meaning “it isn’t in reality, but we will pretend it is for this purpose”
As an example, printing an amendment to a bill in the congressional record is “considered as” having been read in session. It hasn’t really been read in session, but it is “considered as” having been read.
Here is another good example:
“All geographical names shall be considered as one word; for example, “City and County of San Francisco” shall be counted as one word.”
If the first Congress had said “…or out of the limits of the United States, are natural born Citizens:”
that would have been explicitly calling them natural born. Since they were “considered as” natural born, that means that they were not.
“Considered as” is the same terminology as applied to all others who are deemed to be Americans, -the naturalized and their children. You cannot claim that they are fake American citizens who we simply pretend are citizens.
ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUALLY CITIZENS!
Your modern examples are totally irrelevant to what was intended and meant over two hundred years ago, in a different world. Your mind makes a false assumption about the nature and purpose of the language. If it had said “are”, who would it have been saying it to???
To you? To modern America? To the public at large?
NO!! It was not addressed to any but the executive branch employees of the national and state governments involved in national elections including the presidency.
The language was aimed specifically at them because so many of the people were still indoctrinated with the British system of nationality assignment which the founders had thrown out.
They included men of renown, “legal authorities” educated and steeped in British common law, as well as State officials who had no clue as to the new paradigm of Natural Law and Natural Rights adopted by the leadership of the nation, based on the principle of natural membership.
Such neo-nativist imperialists are still with us today. Mario Apuzzo is one.
The wording of the act was specifically chosen to ensure that the natural birthright of all American sons, regardless of birth place, would be protected and not abrogated by State election officials.
It was written on behalf of all American founders serving as American Ambassadors or merchants overseas so their sons would not be foolishly deemed to be aliens and barred from full citizenship rights.
It said in effect that their sons “SHALL BE!!! considered, by you, mr. ignorant State official, as being a natural born citizen and a legitimate candidate for President”.
You SHALL NOT! bar such a person from your State ballot because of your ignorance. He has rights, and they are inherited, and they are unalienable. Borders do NOT trump blood.
No foreign sovereign has any claim on him nor does any alienage attach to sons of Americans. That was the real-world intent of that wording. It was not theoretical.
Minor v. Happersett at 167. (1875) explained:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.”
Mario asked: “But the [British] statute only addressed children born out of the Kingdom. How do you make from the statute alone the quantum leap to children born in the Kingdom and as to what their subject status was?
There is not the slightest scintilla of hint that natural born children of Englishmen could be or were made natural by English law (natural-ized) when they were born being natural Englishmen.
All that the statutes did was preserve and announce their natural born nature and birthright. They were merely declaratory in nature; like an elucidation of an unknown fact that needed to be made clear.
They did not make it so. Nature did. No law can make a natural citizen. Every child can figure that out.
Can a law make someone’s child their natural child? How???
You proclaim that Congress has a similar authority. Please explain that authority, what its source is and what its constitutional origin is. You can’t and so you won’t. Instead you simply mindless declare it to be so with no support of any sort. Legal or logical. “It is so because I declare it.” How royal!
You mindlessly declared that English children born abroad were naturalized, “see, it is so” with not one speck of logic to support that claim. Please explain how the nature of being a natural Englishmen does not and never did exist. Explain how birth location is related to NATURE.
Your presumptuous comprehension of what that paragraph means is abominable from the standpoint of logic. What it means is this:
“it is enacted, “That no Person shall be capable to be of Privy Council or Parliament, (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen) if born out of these Kingdoms, -except such as are born of English Parents,”
He’s an alternative that means the same thing:
“it is enacted, That only such as are born of English Parents shall be capable to be of Privy Council; -and no persons born out of these Kingdoms, (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen) shall be capable. Or…
“it is enacted, That except such as are born of English Parents, no Person born out of these Kingdoms, (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen) shall be capable to be of Privy Council, (or Parliament, etc., etc.).
Only the last one could have been employed because only it had Privy Council at the end, making it capable of being followed by the seven “or”s
Slarti wondered: ” I believe that President Obama’s place of birth is very important,… If he was born overseas, it is not clear if he would have been a citizen at birth…”
If she had been about 4 months older, he would have inherited at birth his mother’s American nationality (just as with a father). He then would be a legal statutory citizen via a natural connection to a citizen mother, but not a natural citizen without a citizen father.
He would have been a citizen via naturalization statute under Congressional authority.
The natural right of birthright national membership only accompanies the child of American parents. With one foreign parent, the right does not exist because it is based on natural principle and the principle’s requirement would not have been met.
Membership in a species or other natural group cannot be obtained if one parent is not a member, but is of a different species. That is so unnatural that is violates the fundamental laws of Life and produces no off-spring whatsoever.
That’s just as in human society, -parents’ of mixed nationality cannot produce a newborn natural member of either nation. They are all statutory citizens. That is the unwritten natural law under-girding the fundamental operation of citizenship acquisition.
Mr. Nash figured he would help himself by cutting out that part of the English naturalization statute which proves that I am correct that at best those children [of Americans born overseas] are naturalized at birth and not natural born citizens.
(The other persons born out of the United States and made by Congress citizens of the United States are so made after birth.) Congress abrogated the common law when it created more citizens of the United States through is naturalization acts.
According to master Mario, Congress is somehow, mysteriously and magically imbued (just like Parliament) with unlimited POWER of naturalization, -with naturalization not even being defined.
The only problem is, -IT ISN’T!
1. Congress is not Parliament.
2. Congress does not possess Parliament’s Power.
3. Congress is limited by the Constitution.
4. The State representatives to the constitutional convention endeavored to retain as much State Sovereignty as possible, -including over their own immigration & naturalization of foreigners.
5. Thus they gave Congress in the Constitution no power equivalent to Parliament.
6. They only authorized it to make the 13 State naturalization statutes (or rules) uniform. UNIFORM! NOTHING ELSE! It is all nothing more than this: “Congress shall have the power… to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Period.
7. Natural-IZATION relates ONLY to making citizens of those who are foreigners by birth. That means they were born of foreigners. Their blood connection is only to a foreign father.
8. The Common Law of the Colonies & States was to deem alien-fathered native sons as citizens (made natural) from birth -or “naturalized at birth”.
9. That only left foreigners born in foreign countries for Congress to address, -including those born abroad of an American mother but a foreign father. (she took on her husband’s nationality by marrying him and living with him abroad,.. and giving birth to foreign children).
10. Americans born abroad were not an element of the authority that Congress was given to make uniform the State rules of naturalizing foreigners.
Mario will not share where the Parliament-like authority over nationality is derived from. He will not do that because he cannot do that which is impossible since it does not exist.
So I’m demanding of master Mario; Stop declaring facts not in evidence, councilor. The court of public opinion requires hard evidence. But you have none, so what you actually are doing is a bamboozle job on the court, -with a false pretense that it is an un-argued fact that everyone accepts.
Children may accept your presumptuous proclamations about the POWER of Congress, but no court of evidence will. But you can neither prove your false claim nor retract it because you have welded it into your over-all dogma.
Mario replied: “It is simply absurd for you to maintain that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to make any qualified person born out of the United States a citizen of the United States at birth or after birth. Our nation has been doing that since 1790, if not sooner, down to the very present.”
No, Mario, Congress, not “our nation”, has only been falsely perceived as doing that, and yet that was not what they were actually doing. I’ve explain why that is. And predicted that you would not and could not show how that is what they actually did or by what authority they could have done it.
You’ve failed the test of debate by resorting to a non-answer and an insult to the challenge which you could not address.
“I do not know what world you live in, but it surely is not the same one that has existed and presently exists as I type these words.”
Exactly. I don’t live in the world of the Wong court’s opinion of the 14th Amendment. Do you?
I don’t live in the bastardized 1898 view of the Wong opinion offered by Attorney General John Griggs. I do not live in your bastardized world of law. If I did, I would have to assume that Obama is a constitutional President since that is its position, -it would appear. Any signs to the contrary?
No, I live in the world of the actual Constitution. You ignore the actual Constitution because it does not comport with your dogma. It, and the Nat. Act of 1790 expose your nonsense for what it is.
But you cannot hide from its immortal words, -words which do NOT contain the authority which the government supposedly exercises.
Either the government is not off the rails as you believe, or the words of the Constitution are the real authority regardless of being mostly ignored, -as we’ve seen over and over. (ACA)
You cannot seriously defend the legal positions and actions of the government when it ignores your doctrine totally, along with the Constitution.
Verbie quoted: Margaret Stock of the conservative-leaning Cato Institute, wrote:
“Traditionally, the clause has been interpreted to confer U.S. citizenship on anyone born within the United States whose parents are subject to U.S. civil and criminal laws — which has historically meant that only babies born in the United States to diplomats, invading armies, or within certain sovereign Native American tribes have been excluded from birthright American citizenship.”
You cannot begin to grasp the ignorance of that statement. I’m not here to inform you about what someone thought about what has been interpreted about what was traditionally presumed.
I’m here to share the cold, hard facts that the entire nation has become ignorant of.
She, like all others, just reiterate the impressions of those before her who did the very same thing, -none of them knowing what they were talking about, only what others’ opinions used to be.
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from “authorities” who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
Autobiography of Mark Twain
Everyone assumes that something that is traditionally accepted must be true or correct or proper even when it isn’t but is an institutionalized error instead.
“… to confer U.S. citizenship on anyone born within the United States whose parents are subject to U.S. civil and criminal laws…”
That is totally false and foolishly so. Everyone is subject to those laws, including Ambassadors. They just can’t be prosecuted if they violate them anyway.
The laws that Citizens are subject to that outsiders are not, are political laws and a man’s national defense obligation. The latter is the central most consequential duty of citizenship because without it the nation falls and is conquered.
Outsiders do NOT have to pay U.S. taxes no matter where in the world they live, nor can they be ordered to not trade with Iran or North Korea, or to not visit Cuba.
Only citizens and permanent residents can be so ordered. They are under the full civilian jurisdiction while those in the military are under a far more serious jurisdiction which is almost devoid of American rights. They are the spine of the nation without which it crumbles via conquest.
“So — a diplomat, by virtue of his station, is exempt from “allegiance” (but not jurisdiction, as Stern pointed out)
Just take those words at face value: here comes the DHS agents to the home of an Iranian ambassador (I know, they don’t exist, but Japanese diplomats did before Pearl Harbor). They tell him, “we don’t expect you to be loyal to America (no allegiance) nor obey her citizen requirements, but we have jurisdiction over you so we are sending you to a secret prison camp for a long, long time.” That is not reality.
“…or certain sovereign Native American tribes have been excluded from birthright American citizenship.”
Why excluded? On the basis of what? There is nothing in the common law that covers their situation so what principle was relied on as the basis of dealing with them?
Answer: It was the principle of natural rights.
All peoples have the right of self-governance and sovereignty. They are not rightfully subject to the orders or laws of an invading government. Indians in America, though born here, were outsiders, just as were foreigners, whether diplomats or visitors or tourists or guests or students.
Their own government held sovereignty over them, -if… they were adult males. Otherwise they didn’t matter since they were not obligated to do their part for national defense. Instead they were under the jurisdiction of their husband or father.
Someone of draft age from Europe who fled to the U.S. to escape conscription would be returned to their government’s authorities and suffer the consequences of their action. Those governments would do the same with Americans seeking refuge from their obligation. That is part of the bedrock of actual jurisdiction, -something that only those who’ve served know anything about.
~from U.S. v Wong Kim Ark: “to exclude… (besides children of members of the Indian tribes standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law, the two classes of cases—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives… had been recognized exceptions.
A few years ago I wrote an entire exposition titled something like: “a peculiar relation; unknown to the common law” in which I show just why the two exceptions cannot logically be the only two exceptions. They are only the only two ever mentioned because everyone merely regurgitates what those before them mentioned until it becomes catechism doctrine.
No principle at all is involved in their writing or their understanding. Rote, drone-like repetition devoid of comprehension of the subject. All that everyone understood was what the rule was, -not what its underlying principle was, -nor what its breadth was.
“So there you have it. Babies born in the US to Ambassdorial-level diplomats or heads of state are not considered US citizens, because the Constitution says so.”
We have a problem and it is your ignorance. If you don’t know that supreme court opinion dicta is NOT a part of the Constitution or Supreme Court holding, then you don’t know enough about reality to be able to benefit from instruction being as you are far too certain about the certainty of the opinions of others while you remain only semi-informed but cocksure.
Adrien Nash June 2014 obama–nation.com