Posted on 05/01/2011 7:36:43 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
{So, it’s pretty obvious that there is no clear legal prohibition on Obama being eligible for the presidency because his father was from Kenya and not a US citizen}
________________________________________
What is obvious, is that no one in government gives a cr@p about the Constitution.
No. Pretty much anyone anywhere can be arrested, including diplomats (though there may be hell to pay for it). They are subject to the jurisdiction because they can be tried and convicted makes them subject to the jurisdiction.
I am subject to the jurisdiction. I pay taxes, can be summoned for jury or military duty, I can vote.
That is not what jurisdiction means. If you are under a particular jurisdiction, that body of law applies to you. If you are not, it does not. Jury duty and voting are rights of citizenship; military duty is also extended to green card holders. Taxes are no respecter of persons.
It is an absurd bit of legal contortionism to try to claim that anyone who cannot vote, etc. is not "subject to the jurisdiction." Black Americans were prevented from voting or serving on juries for the better part of a century, and establishing that they are citizens was the primary purpose of the 14th amendment.
>>>Treating illegal aliens as enemy invaders would require treating the situation as a de facto state of war, a military matter instead of a criminal justice one.
That is how it should be treated. Instead we give them free healthcare and education. And for that we need to gain a few extra IQ points so we can call ourselves stupid.
If you think "anchor babies" are a sufficient threat to justify martial law, make the case at the ballot box. This is still a reasonably democratic country, after all.
{Yours is a stupid statement and one which attempts to set a false premise!}
Maybe your stupid response explains why the traffic is down, probably more DU’rs read our threads than freepers.
I see the point went right over your head. The point was that the Senate recognized the problem and set about to cover it up. This is a stupid as; I a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound?
The answer is it doesn’t matter, the same applies to laws, they have absolutely no affect unless someone enforces them. We are absolutely not living in a Constitutional Republic, but a soft tyranny of and for those in the political class.
Circular. The very first law that applies to illegals is that they don't belong here.
You said that if illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction then:
...that would lead to a hell of a lot of prison doors being thrown open.
Yet you also said that:
A government is assumed to have jurisdiction over its territory and the people in it -- that is what makes it a government. Diplomats and Indians were exempted from that jurisdiction by specific laws and treaties.
And yet we know Indians who were not subject to the jurisdiction could be and were arrested, tried and convicted for crimes committed in the states.
So far all I get is that because they can be jailed for crimes that makes them subject to the jurisdiction. That really excludes no one and makes the phrase meaningless.
I really see no differnce between illegals and those Indians.
The Indians were outside US law while on Indian lands. The reservations were legally independent countries — their citizens were not US citizens, though the reservations were legally inside the United States. While on the reservations, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Babies born on the reservation were not United States citizens at birth. When they left the reservations, they were subject to US (and the appropriate state) jurisdiction.
Similarly, Mexican citizens are not subject ot US jurisdiction while in Mexico. They are subject to US jurisdiction while in the US.
I’ll let it go at that, enjoyed the exchange.
FReegards and see you on the threads!
Many points have gone right over your head, but it's a waste of time to discuss them since you find what you want whether or not it's really there.
But one more repetition: It makes NO difference what the Senate did with SRs because they have NO force of law and answer NO legal questions and set NO legal precedents.
Thank you (both of you) for looking at the passage for me. It seemed so clear that a distinction was being made as soon as one tried to make sense of, as Betty wrote, the commas. It did not make sense if mere citizens were always to be eligible. Nor did it make sense for natural born citizens to be ineligible after the adoption of the Constitution. Someone had to be ineligible after the adoption of the constitution.
Very true, dear brother in Christ!
Perhaps they do. I would imagine a good many Left Netters read FR's threads. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Methinks, however, Left Netters do more than just read.
Fortunately, standard punctuation in modern English calls for fewer commas than the older usage. We readers today are used to the more "streamlined" rules; so when we encounter the older usage, it gives us a headache. :^)
That superfluous comma notwithstanding, the logic of Article II, Section 1 is: “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 the President."
Thank you so very much for your spot-on insights, dear brother in Christ!
Kind words from both of you. Thank you.
Kind words from both of you. Thank you.
Kind words from both of you. Thank you.
This may have already been said, but it doesn’t look to me like the 14th Amendment applies - it doesn’t address NBC, only “citizen”, but that is not the question.
Let me rethink that: I guess it could be argued that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (which I would interpet as subject to the laws of the US), and, if he isn't, whether or not he ever was, so his citizenship actually could be questioned.
I don’t know how many times I have stated that the SR had absolutely no legal affect any more than a SR that proclaimed avocado day, you just don’t want to hear it.
My point was that the leadership of both parties were complicit in the whole coverup of this guys past.
That is your first post to me, your #36. Of course, it references nothing I said in a post of several sentences. You mention a SR which has no legal weight and don't bother to explain any relevance you think it has.
You posts are inane, unclear and a waste of time. Anyone who wants to waste some time just start with #36 and proceed.
Your post kind of reminds me of the old days when my 45’ player would get stuck in a grove.
The SR 511 was introduced and passed in an attempt to legitimize the fraud both parties were about to perpetrate on the public.
You have played the same tune untill I can’t even remember what your point was, nor do I any longer care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.