So what did unlimited dark money do for us?

genuineoriginal

New member
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Barack Obama was not eligible because he did not meet the natural born requirement.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Having a Kenyan citizen for a father means Barack Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but was subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya.
 

rexlunae

New member
Barack Obama was not eligible because he did not meet the natural born requirement.


Having a Kenyan citizen for a father means Barack Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but was subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya.

That's not what that means. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is limiting the citizenship conferred by the 14th Amendment to people born in the US who are subject to its laws. Having a foreign parent doesn't make you immune to US jursidiction. Being born to a foreign diplomat might, and so could being born to a Native American tribe who weren't considered citizens. But just having a foreign parent wouldn't prevent it.

Also, worth noting that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't provide an exclusive definition of citizenship. You can become a citizen under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, or you can become a citizen other ways as well.

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to explicitly override Supreme Court precedent in the Dredd Scott case. It's a bitter irony to have racists trying to use it to delegitimize the first black president.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
That's not what that means. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is limiting the citizenship conferred by the 14th Amendment to people born in the US who are subject to its laws. Having a foreign parent doesn't make you immune to US jursidiction.


What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. in any State they ventured into Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.


The Fourteenth Amendment was written to explicitly override Supreme Court precedent in the Dredd Scott case. It's a bitter irony to have racists trying to use it to delegitimize the first black president.
Barack Obama is not eligible to be president because of the nationality of his father, not because of the color of his skin.
If you think the color of his skin is important, then you are by definition the racist.
 

rexlunae

New member

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. in any State they ventured into Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.



Barack Obama is not eligible to be president because of the nationality of his father, not because of the color of his skin.
If you think the color of his skin is important, then you are by definition the racist.

Try reading something that actually has value setting precedent:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

You are essentially taking up the argument of the dissent, so while it's true that there was once a group who understood the Fourteenth Amendment as you do, it was deeply in the minority even in the late 19th century.

The fact that you cling to this interpretation now, 120 years later, can only be interpreted as...well, you know...
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
there's only one of me

One at a time, actually, do you suppose any person here has actually kept track of your various personnas? You seem to have a case of serial multiple personality disorder.

i know that's a difficult concept for those of you on the left who hear voices in their heads

At least you manage to keep them going one at a time.

You're getting boring, now, fluffbutton. Have a good day.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barack Obama was not eligible because he did not meet the natural born requirement.

As you learned, Obama met the requirement two different ways. First, by being the son of an American citizen, and second, by having been born in the United States. He meets both jus sanguinus and jus solis, under American law.

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401, section a:
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;


or if you believe the birthers in their odd rejection of his proof of birth in Hawaii:

section d:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States


Having a Kenyan citizen for a father means Barack Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

No, that's wrong. Only if his father was a diplomat assigned to the United States,and his mother had not been an American citizen, that would have been true. As you know, foreign nationals who are not diplomats or family of diplomats assigned to the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is, such foreign residents are indeed subject to all of our laws.

but was subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya.

No, that's wrong, too. Like any other American citizen, he would have been subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya only if he was in Kenya, and not given diplomatic immunity.
 
Top