Birthright citizenship? Cite the case!

Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 10 months ago to Politics
7 comments | Share | Flag

Donald Trump stirred the pot when he proposed to end birthright citizenship in the United States. A former judge, a TV talk-show host, and one of his opponents for the Republican nomination all say the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. All right, then! Let them cite the case! Karl Rove just did--but not before I took time to take that case apart. What do you think?

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 10 months ago
    Citizens have mandatory civic duties (jury duty, pay taxes, support the government, serve in the militia) that involve loss of endowed birthrights of life, liberty, and absolute ownership.
    American people are sovereigns, with no obligations nor duties to the State.
    . . .
    According to the Declaration of Independence, the source of the republican form of government, people [Americans] are endowed by their CREATOR [not government] with rights [natural] and liberties [natural and personal] which amounts to sovereignty, freedom and independence. Governments are instituted among men to secure these endowed rights - not infringe, tax, or impair them - unless by CONSENT of the governed.

    Though the Declaration (and the 13th amendment) prohibit involuntary servitude (without consent), it appears that the 14th amendment imposes citizenship and thus all associated civic duties at birth. Since infants cannot consent, this amounts to involuntary servitude.

    How and who delegated power to the Federal government, a foreign corporation with respect to a state, to impose citizenship INSIDE a state, that voids endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of property?

    ENDOWED RIGHTS are mutually exclusive with mandatory CIVIC DUTIES.

    This, alone, should have raised RED FLAGS among Americans.

    Either we're born with endowed rights (sovereigns) or we're born subject citizens obligated to perform mandatory civic duties in exchange for civil and political 'rights'.

    Americans cannot be "born" citizens (and thus subjects) without our consent. Infants cannot consent.

    That means most Americans were never "born within the jurisdiction" of the foreign corporation (U.S. government), and thus were not U.S. citizens nor of the state in which they "reside." The 13th amendment ban on involuntary servitude is clearly limited in scope to the united States and ‘their' territories. This excludes the federal government and ‘its' territories and possessions.

    By fraudulent consent, the government has operated under the presumption that "we" surrendered our birthright to be sovereign, free and independent. In place of endowed rights to life and liberty, we have mandatory duties to serve and to die. In place of absolute ownership of all our property, we owe a portion in support of the government. In place of sacred rights, we traded down to "civil rights," that pale in comparison to natural rights and liberties.

    - - - - -
    At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
    Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

    It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
    - - - Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

    " PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
    - - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

    Endowed rights are not dependent upon the constitution, may not be submitted to a vote, nor subject to the servant government. They are sacred, as is absolute ownership of private property.
    . . . . . . . .
    “ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
    - - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

    ... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... (Currently 18 to 45)
    ... No inalienable right to life, liberty or private property for [consenting] citizens!

    The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
    If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, militia duty must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

    Were you born a slave or a free man?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 10 months ago
    Hello Temlakos,
    It pains me to disagree with the Judge, but in this case I agree with Mark Levin. I am a proponent of original intent. The SCOTUS has been in error to find differently.
    The 14th Amendment:
    “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    The first part is inclusive: All persons born or naturalized in the United States. After the comma refers to the conditions that qualify the proposition and make true.
    The question is, someone who is in the US illegally, or tourist or visitor, do they come under the jurisdiction thereof? Are they automatically given all the rights of a citizen as they were still here? Parents did not come under the jurisdiction or have rights of citizens. Tourists and visitors still have to abide by the law, but are not granted the rights of citizens. Illegal entry by pregnant mothers does not grant them the right to bestow the right of citizenship to their offspring who are alos here illegally..

    On the floor of the Senate, when the 14th Amendment was introduced, you'd know that jurisdiction is not geographical but specific to the jurisdiction based on sovereignty and loyalty of one's nationality.

    From the record on the floor of the 1866 Senate and recorded in the Library of Congress:, An unambiguous, clearly delineated explanation has been given and was made known by the full Congress before voting and before passage, by the author of the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard. An excerpt from his explanation of the 14th Amendment and his address to Section 1 follows:
    "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States"

    Also the Constitution previously made it clear CONGRESS has the power to determine who is a citizen in Article I, Section 8: POWERS OF CONGRESS. (not the executive or the SCOTUS)

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: Naturalization and Bankruptcies
    "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;..."

    Acts of Congress define the requirements by which immigrants can become citizens. Only the federal government, not the states, can determine who becomes a citizen.

    The 14th amendment was instituted to make African Americans citizens after the Civil war. It did not even make American Indians citizens.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
    Doesn't matter. The Supremes are political appointees. They will do what they are told regardless of what is written or ethical or moral or traditional or rational or equitable to the productive sovereign people.
    As is usual from Scump, its a circus sideshow.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo