[Michael Michael]

First of all, they assert that there really is no need to have the force of law in the first place.

Well, in spite of all the jokes about McCain's age, he WAS born after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what covers citizenship of the United States. If you're not a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, you're simply not a US citizen.

I never claimed that the military operated outside of the Constitution; just that the Constitution recognized two different jurisdictions, procedures and exemptions for civilians and the military.

Let's have Sherman turn the Wayback Machine to your statement which started this whole issue and before you started weaseling all over the place:

When both parents are U.S. citizens, and one is active duty personnel, and the spouse is a military dependent, then the UCMJ considers their child to be a natural born citizen regardless of where the birth takes place.

I replied, asking you how it was that the UCMJ trumped the Constitution.

This was your response:

Because the military operates under its own official jurisdiction via the UCMJ.

So there you have it.

I asked you how the UCMJ trumped the Constitution, and you said because the military operates under its own official jurisdiction under the UCMJ.

Now tell me, how can the UCMJ trump the Constitution unless it were wholly separate from the Constitution?

Here's the bottom line. You started out making the incredibly ignorant claim that the UCMJ considers children born to active duty personnel to be "natural born citizens" regardless of where they are born, in spite of the fact that the UCMJ says absolutely nothing at all regarding citizenship, natural born or otherwise.

When I asked you how the UCMJ trumped the Constitution, you compounded your original ignorant claim with yet another ignorant claim, that the military via the UCMJ operates outside the Constitution.

And you've been trying to weasel out of it ever since.

McCain's father remained under the direct jurisdiction of the U.S. due to his status as a military officer.

And again, you apparently can't comprehend simple English. Whatever "jurisdiction" regarding McCain's father is irrelevant to McCain himself. That's because the Fourteenth Amendment speaks of the PERSON BORN, not their parents.

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...

Where do you see anything in there about parents? Just quote the exact words that you're reading and interpreting to mean the parents of the person born. Otherwise, your yammering on about McCain's father is irrelevant.

[Cyropaedia]

Now tell me, how can the UCMJ trump the Constitution unless it were wholly separate from the Constitution?

Look, I'll make this simple so that even an idiot such as yourself can understand the issue. The UCMJ does not exist separate from the Constitution, but operates with in the Constitution for the purpose of giving the Government direct control over all military personnel so that the Government can undertake the all important responsibility of National Defense.

Look at it this way : Both diplomats and military are government employees. Both the military and the Diplomatic corps are specifically required to take official oaths of allegiance to our Government as a prerequisite for official service. Both groups are required to perform necessary government functions within foreign countries. And it is necessary for our government to maintain direct jurisdiction and control over both groups so they are able to carry out those functions. Think of it as two arms that are part of the same body.

The UCMJ allows the Government to exercise full authority and control over military personnel regardless of the area and laws in which they happen to reside. It doesn't matter what the laws are in a given state or municipality. Even if a soldier commits a "non military" crime outside of a military installation against a civilian, the soldier is still tried by military officers in a military court. The government maintains control over the soldier regardless of the jurisdiction of the state or local in which the crime occurred.

Likewise, even if a soldier or officer commits a "non military" crime such as rape or theft against a foreign civilian in their host country (outside of a military installation), that individual is still tried by our military officers in a U.S. military court because our government maintains that it's jurisdiction (via the UCMJ) still supersedes the host nation's own jurisdiction; even in circumstances such as these.

Now, there may separate treaties or official agreements with a particular country that does allow them to prosecute our military personnel in their own courts for a particular set of crimes. But this kind of arrangement is contingent upon a particular contract of treaty with the nation in question. Our government wants to maintain control over all military personnel as SOP.

Olson and Tribe contend that this kind of *supra -national* jurisdiction and control works both ways for citizens involved with military service that have taken an official oath declaring direct and immediate allegiance to our country and its government. Their children are citizens by birth, because the parent is subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the U.S. Government. Jurisdiction, as Trumbull specifically stated, is defined by national allegiance. The parents' status at the time of birth defines the child's status at birth. It works this way with all groups.

And remember, the family was outside of the country at the time because because of the parent(s) military duties.