Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE

VANITY

[philman_36]

It makes more sense then your idea that the State of Indiana doesn’t understand the Constitution.
So you can't back up neither your assertion nor your assumption. Duly noted.

Have you found a instance yet of the Constitution with the word Clause in it?
I gave you a link. Did you miss it?

@http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html - THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

It has "clause" throughout it.

[noinfringers2]

Being a ‘birther’ I have often wondered why the Founders did not be more explicit as to the meaning/description of an ‘NBC’ which they so uniquely embedded in the Constitution for POTUSA . It is well known that the Founders were much aware of the talk/discussions about ‘NBC’ and even had communications as to such. With years of dealing with laws, rules, regulations, specifications, etc. I have often been involved in presentations which assumed that somethings not mentioned were taken as ‘a matter of fact’. I believe that is why the Founders did not write ‘a matter of fact’ appended to the requirement for ‘NBC’. Much like when they signed the Constitution they did not declare themselves as citizens of the States.

[Harlan1196]

I don’t have a position on Indian citizenship - which was what this case was about.

Go read Sloan v U.S.

[philman_36]

Look at the Constitution AS WRITTEN. The one that was signed. That old piece of brown parchment. That one.
I have. It gives no weight to your assertion or assumption.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations.

ALL matters of citizenship are a function of International law. Within domestic law, there is no need to apply the designation of "citizen" because everyone is of the exact same political status. Were there not other nations, there would be no such thing as the word "citizen." It's very existence implies Others who are not, and it therefore is a function of the existence of other nations. Ergo Inter-National law.

You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.

Read the decision again, CLOSELY. At the beginning of the second page The Judge says:

... the question is to be solved in the same way as if one parent was a citizen of the United States and the other a citizen of a foreign nation.

Let that sink in for a moment. What the Judge is describing is the EXACT situation of Barack Obama, and by that Judge's understanding of the law, He would rule that Barack Obama WAS NOT even a CITIZEN, let alone a "natural born citizen."

NOT EVEN A CITIZEN.

[Harlan1196]

No - you showed me a web page. Go look at the actual Constitution that was hand written and signed.

No clauses.

[DiogenesLamp]

It also illustrates that if someone can recognize the errors made in one instance then they should also be able to recognize other instances of error.

Enforcing the impression that we're all idiots and incapable of determining issues on our own and only judges can do so, as Harlan1196 is doing, is an insult to all Americans.

I recall another Judge in another court decision citing the WRONG SECTION of the Constitution in rendering his decision. I forget which case it was, but I thought to myself at the time, "You can't even get the correct SECTION of the document right, and you want us to think you seriously considered this issue?"

[DiogenesLamp]

I showed that it was a specific law in 1907 that automatically linked a woman’s citizenship to her husband.

You replied with an unsubstantiated word salad.

Show me the laws prior to 1907 - should be simple to do. Just the American ones since foreign laws don’t apply here.

And Here, (once again) is the specific law from 1854.

[Harlan1196]

So you see the word Clause written there? Really?

[Harlan1196]

Where does it say that a women marrying a foreigner lost her American citizenship?

Your bill still allows split citizenship parents.

And can you show that this bill was actually passed into law? Where is the partner Senate Bill?

[Harlan1196]

A brief historic note here:

Partus sequitur ventrem was also used in the South specifically to ensure that the children of slaves were born slaves.

That is one of the main reasons that particular theory fell out of favor.

[philman_36]

No clauses.
There are clauses, they're simply not labeled as such.

And just to illustrate how idiotic your assertions are I give you this...one among many instances.

@The Federalist Papers : No. 84

Independent of those which relate to the structure of the government, we find the following: Article 1, section 3, clause 7 "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.'' Section 9, of the same article, clause 2 "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' Clause 3 "No bill of attainder or ex-post-facto law shall be passed.'' Clause 7 "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.'' Article 3, section 2, clause 3 "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.'' Section 3, of the same article "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'' And clause 3, of the same section "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.''

Are you obtuse?

[Harlan1196]

A brief historic note here:

Partus sequitur ventrem was also used in the South specifically to ensure that the children of slaves were born slaves.

That is one of the main reasons that particular theory fell out of favor.

[Harlan1196]

And when a clause is removed, what happens? Skip a number or renumber? Indiana renumbered.

[Harlan1196]

Good catch by the way. I learned something today - which is why I am here in the first place.

[philman_36]

Indiana renumbered.
You've already stated that you can't prove your claim, or assertion, so why do you keep going back to a failed argument?

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations.

Yes, but in actuality they were not treated the same as citizens of OTHER foreign and sovereign nations. The Children of anyone of European descent were automatically granted citizenship status upon birth. The Children of Indians were not. (My Grandfather was 1/2 Cherokee by the way.)

You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.

I am pointing out that a Judge which ruled on a case regarding a man who was adjudged to be a Non-Indian, said the same process would be used if one of the parents of a child was an American Citizen and the other was a member of a foreign nation.

The case was NOT about an Indian, it was about a man who CLAIMED to be an Indian and argued the court did not have jurisdiction because a treaty had removed the court's jurisdiction regarding Indians.

Besides, the court rejected the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in Sloan v U.S.

I will look it up, but I cannot help but think you are looking to some of the Fogbow sites for your information. When you came into this discussion there were many things you did not know, now I see you quoting the Fogbow crew's arguing points. This stuff is pretty esoteric, and the only people researching it are Us and the enemy.(Liberal Democrat Obama supporters.)

[philman_36]

Good catch by the way.
You should have already known that, just like I did.

I learned something today...
Yet another poignant instance showing that you don't know even half of what you claim you know!

...which is why I am here in the first place.

Please! Do you think everybody is stupid and can't see right through you?

[Harlan1196]

New Hampshire renumbered

655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers.

I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.

II. I, _________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the ____ day of ____; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa655.htm

[philman_36]

New Hampshire renumbered
We're not talking about New Hampshire, are we.