Reflections on the 14th Amendment Sec IV

[Codee]

Sorry Weis. I will go look it up. That sentence seems important to me.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Codee

Sorry Weis. I will go look it up. That sentence seems important to me.

It IS important. Thanks for pointing that out.

I thought I copped that direct from Westlaw

[palani]

Big Al posted

The doctrines I brought up are the primary excuse for the meanings of the constitution and what the meaning is suppose to mean. At least this is what the courts across the land have spouted as the meaning of the constitution. Is this new to you? It's only been around since the civil war

Oh, I see you are talking about doctrines rather than the material I posted. I retract my previous post. My misunderstanding.

You know, under Law principles are fairly clearcut and arguable. Under the fictional system we are now supposed to be under the outcome can be clearly predicted by combining chicken bones and feathers in a bucket, rattling it around and interpolating the results. If the actual results don't match the prediction you just selected the wrong chicken.

[Akira-]

I copied this from Westlaw this morning....

Sharon v. Hill
11 Sawy. 290, 26 F. 337
C.C.Cal. 1885
Dec 26, 1885 (Approx. 42 pages)

Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no citizens of the United States, but only of some one of them. Congress had the power 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, ' but not the power to make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state. But the states generally provided that such persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become citizens thereof, and then the courts held, ab convenienti, rather than otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United States. Story, Cont. Sec. 1693; Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock. 391.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Codee]

So what country was a person a citizen of if they were born in DC in 1790 and never left?

[Akira-]

If the King and (pregnant) Queen of England are visiting France, and she has the baby there, and the baby never leaves....

"Partus sequitur ventrem; The offspring follow the condition of the mother, this is the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father." - Bouvier's Maxim's of Law (1856)


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Codee

So what country was a person a citizen of if they were born in DC in 1790 and never left?

Interesting question. If you are talikng about the doctrine of Jus Soli, than this can be murky

However, under Jus sanguinis, one's nationality is that of what his father's is, so if they were born in DC in 1790, but there father was an English National, than that person's nationality is English.

However, these days, one can expatriate out of DC and claim another state's nationality

[Akira-]

Heh.. jus soli is just a slaves method of gaining allegience to a different master with better benefits.

[weishaupt1776]

THink about how wacked out jus soli is as an absolute 100% basis:

Your Mom is pregnant with you, you guys go to France on vacation, you are born prematurely in France

So, your French Now?

[Big Al]

If this isn't a matter of the powers that be hiding the truth, I don't know what is. I've have looked till I'm worn out looking for a case called Elk V. Watson. I have somewhere a copy of this case. The supremes in the late 1860's or 1870's heard a case for a Sioux Indian who wanted to vote using the 14th for his reason and he was turned down for the reason that the 14th did not apply to him. This is the most devastating case I've ever read that just tears the crap out of the immigration arguments we hear today. If anyone can find this case you will be floored with what the court had to say. The logic is beyond reproach.