Obama Disqualified By Original 13th Amendment | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 351956 United States 02/14/2008 01:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Halcyon Dayz User ID: 337024 Netherlands 02/14/2008 04:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ntisithoj User ID: 361117 Argentina 02/14/2008 05:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 372595 United States 02/14/2008 05:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ambiguity unlimited User ID: 373485 United States 02/14/2008 07:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 243849 Canada 02/14/2008 08:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
LouisWinthorpeIII User ID: 373494 United States 02/14/2008 08:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Oh please, the VP & Prez can't claim residense in the same state... Well guess what state the war mongering dick & that idiot son of an asshole claim residence? Yeah, both claim Texas. What on earth makes you think they give a damn what that "piece of paper" say? "I don't know which was scarier...the speech...or the Congress cheering it. He evoked Lincoln. Whenever a President is going to get us into serious trouble...they always use Lincoln." -2010 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 373450 United States 02/14/2008 08:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ambiguity unlimited User ID: 373485 United States 02/14/2008 08:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 373450actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... |
Ganid (OP) User ID: 204982 Canada 02/14/2008 09:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: ambiguity unlimitedactually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... Would you please show us all where in the Constitution that US military bases in foreign countries is considered to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base, no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands. And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London. Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution. You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers. |
LS User ID: 253961 United States 02/14/2008 09:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: Ganidactually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... Would you please show us all where in the Constitution that US military bases in foreign countries is considered to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base, no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands. And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London. Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution. You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers. The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1] [link to en.wikipedia.org] 5. November 14, 1986 to Present If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President. [link to en.wikipedia.org] MAKA = Make America Kind Again |
Ganid (OP) User ID: 204982 Canada 02/14/2008 10:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1] Quoting: LS[link to en.wikipedia.org] 5. November 14, 1986 to Present If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Congress cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution. The requirements are very specific in the Constitution - you know, "That God Damned Piece Of Paper", unless there is a ratified Constitutional Amendment stating the change. But even such Amendments have been questioned, as Amendments can only clarify or elaborate upon the basic Constitution, not contradict it. The original 13th Amendment only added a penalty to a provision that was already within the Original Constitution and Articles of Confederation, and, expanded those provisions to include the prohibition of 'special honors'. The Constitution left the terms of 'naturalization' to Congress, and that is to what your references refer. "Naturalization' does not mean 'natural born on American soil, be it a State, territory or embassy. Here is an article I just posted on the same issue as McCain's eligibility Wrong the canal was a us territory at the time. We have already been through this as a country, he is Eligible! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 351956I strongly suspect that it is you who are WRONG. Unless, of course, you can come up with a law that defends your argument. I can produce the law that says you are incorrect. McCain is not eligible to be President of the USA. If you look at 8 USC 1403(a), it addressed McCain’s situation rather clearly: “(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” So it’s pretty clear that John McCain is a citizen. But is he a natural born (jus soli) citizen or a naturalized (lex soli) citizen? This is where it gets tricky. Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term “is declared to be a citizen” (emphasis added), that leans heavily towards a lex soli position (naturalization). And persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply a naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date. But is there anything more concrete than that? The Supreme Court has never addressed the specifics of a natural born citizen, except once in passing, in the dissent of the infamous Dred Scott case, of all places, so it really has no bearing. Other cases have looked at citizenship, but not specifically the natural born part of it. Historically, the term “natural born” was put in Article II at the request of John Jay (who later helped write the Federalist Papers, became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and pointed out in 1796 that jury nullification is a right and duty of the people) to George Washington in a letter from 25 July 1787. McCain has claimed that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (26 March 1790) covers his status as a natural born citizen. THAT IS NOT TRUE. A close look at the Act indicates that it only covers “admission as a citizen” (meaning naturalization), and that Act was repealed in part 29 January 1795 and again in total 14 April 1802. So that argument does not work because it was repealed and because it creates naturalization instead of natural born citizenship. That leads us all back to the Constitution. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President. But there’s more. If you look at the 14th Amendment, the term “in the United States” is there. What does that mean, specifically? “In the United States” is generally thought to mean the States, territories, protectorates, and embassies. But the wording is never clear in the law on what exactly the jurisdiction of the United States explicitly is. [Nowhere is 'military base or installation' mentioned.] But if you look again at 8 USC 1401(c) and 1403(a), you see a big difference. 8 USC 1401(c) address births outside the U.S., meaning clearly that the “born in the United States” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship. Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a NATURALIZED citizen. 8 USC 1403(a) already “declares” citizenship and implies naturalization. The only logical conclusion is that the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States, else these sections (8 USC 1401(c) and 8 USC 1403(a)) never needed to be codified into law in the first place, and 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead (see above). |
Enlilson User ID: 337505 United States 02/14/2008 10:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | YUP. That would can 3/4 of the Congress and Senate. It was ratified and in print... but somehow got lost and a new 13th added in its place. Neither the 16th or 17th were ratified either. Quoting: NightWispIt called the War of 1812 and it was burned along with many other US documents. It doesn't matter who I m it's who U R so ChoOse |
The Good Reverend Roger User ID: 330206 United States 02/14/2008 10:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Obama is a lawyer, an 'esquire'. Quoting: GanidThat is a ceremonial title (like calling a PhD "Doctor")not a title of nobility, you fucking moron. You must really be desperate. Sorry, pal, Hillary is going down. ETA: And posting email forwards is a sign of Limbaughism. Just saying. HORRIBLE BASTARD. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 10:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: ambiguity unlimitedactually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... You guys are dumb. Military bases are not part of the US in the sense that metters here. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." [link to www.state.gov] straight from the state department |
LS User ID: 253961 United States 02/14/2008 10:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... You guys are dumb. Military bases are not part of the US in the sense that metters here. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." [link to www.state.gov] straight from the state department November 14, 1986 to Present If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] I WIN, YOU LOSE! your post refers to a child being born to non-US parents on an oversees US military base, such as an iraqi baby born in the green zone. MAKA = Make America Kind Again |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 10:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: LSactually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... Would you please show us all where in the Constitution that US military bases in foreign countries is considered to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base, no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands. And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London. Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution. You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers. The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1] [link to en.wikipedia.org] 5. November 14, 1986 to Present If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President. [link to en.wikipedia.org] More Bullshit! The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795! which says: "And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Putting people born overseas by citizens, in the same category as children that were born overseas by non-citizens, who were then naturalized. Neither would be Natural-born citizens, as their citizenship is defended through legal naturalization. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 10:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | November 14, 1986 to Present Quoting: LSIf at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] I WIN, YOU LOSE! your post refers to a child being born to non-US parents on a military base, such as an iraqi baby born in the green zone. 1986?! McCain was born in the 1930s, idiot! |
LS User ID: 253961 United States 02/14/2008 10:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually check out McCain, he is disqualified. born in some foreign country!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627actually he isnt, moron.....he was born at a us navy base in pananma, of 2 american parents....military bases and embassies are considered american sovereign territory, making mccain a native son of america....so a constitutional provision which forbade the election of foreign lawyers to office applies to all lawyers in this country??? i guess that will be news to all those lawyers holding office now...... if you dont like a candidate, fine, talk all the shit you like about his positions, record, personal life, all the reasons you dont like the idea of that person holding office, but spare me the idiotic attempts at showing why they should be forbidden from running...... Would you please show us all where in the Constitution that US military bases in foreign countries is considered to be US territory. An embassy, yes; but a military base, no. Remember, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of there ever being a need for US military bases in foreign lands. And, yes, all American lawyers have their primary oath of allegiance to the Temple BAR of the City of London. Any subsequent oath taken becomes a 'non-oath, just as the Kol Nidre in Talmudic law allows a Talmudist to disavow any oath taken in the coming year. That makes any oath taken by a lawyer-politician about of as much value as a wet paper sack. And, another thread shows wher 68 Congressmen have disavowed their oath of office in voting recently for laws totally contrary to the Constitution. You will find that most, if not all of these were lawyers. The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[1] [link to en.wikipedia.org] 5. November 14, 1986 to Present If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and running in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] Neither Goldwater nor Romney was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President. [link to en.wikipedia.org] More Bullshit! The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795! which says: "And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Putting people born overseas by citizens, in the same category as children that were born overseas by non-citizens, who were then naturalized. Neither would be Natural-born citizens, as their citizenship is defended through legal naturalization. November 14, 1986 to Present If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens, and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it. [link to immigration.findlaw.com] MAKA = Make America Kind Again |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
LS User ID: 253961 United States 02/14/2008 10:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (The majority opinion in this case was mostly overturned by the 14th Amendment.) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen. Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.) Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958): Although the 14th Amendment sets forth the two principal modes of acquiring citizenship (birth in the U.S. and naturalization), nothing restricts the power of Congress to withdraw citizenship. (This case was overturned by Afroyim v. Rusk.) Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.) Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967): The 14th Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): A person who is born abroad to an American mother shall lose his or her citizenship unless he or she resides in this country for at least five years between the ages of 14 and 28. (This is no longer the case; the statute under which Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship was repealed by Congress in 1978.) Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship). However, intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship must be established specifically by a preponderance of evidence; such an intent may not be inferred automatically as a result of a person's having performed an act which Congress has designated as an expatriating act. However, when "one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor." Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married). Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth). The Supreme Court, through case law, has created a guideline for U.S. citizenship. The following outlines the rulings of the Court: The 14th Amendment completely controls the status of U.S. citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. This applies to children born to legal and illegal residents. This does not apply to children of foreign citizens employed in any diplomatic or official capacity. Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship). A person must voluntarily relinquish U.S. citizenship. It is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor. Congress may revoke citizenship involuntarily if it has been obtained unlawfully. Congress has the power to define citizenship outside birth in the U.S. Congress can set different citizenship requirements for children born to American mothers versus American fathers. Congress can require that U.S. citizenship must be established by a certain age for it to be recognized. [link to en.wikipedia.org] MAKA = Make America Kind Again |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 10:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone: "I was born in the Canal Zone to 2 US born Parents working for the Canal Zone Government. Guess what? I am not a Natural Born US Citizen. At age 3 my parents applied for my Naturalization Papers and my mother guarded them with her life. When I apply for a Passport, a birth certificate is not good enough, I must pull out that Naturalization Paper work. My birth certificates state on them Ancon, Canal Zone, Republic of Panama. Panama is unique. It has never held the same generally accepted laws as US Military bases in other over seas locations. Babies born in Panama are registered w the Panamanian Registro Civil. My marriage was preformed by a Panamanian Judge in a Panama Court house - My marriage to a US Army Soldier and me a dependent of US Civilian Parents. Do a little real homework before staying the idea is wrong. In the end the US Supreme Court will have to make the ruling. There are enough cases on the books regarding CZ's status that any good lawyer can lay a claim McCain is not eligible by the definition in the constitution." By the way, LS. How is your last post relavent? Of course there have been different interpretations for different purposes. |
The Good Reverend Roger User ID: 330206 United States 02/14/2008 10:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 11:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone: Quoting: The Good Reverend RogerLink? It's on a blog somewhere, I copied it from an earlier date. In any case: Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952. McCain was not a natural born US citizen at birth! He was not even a US citizen at all until he was naturalized! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 11:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personal account from someone born in the Canal Zone: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627Link? It's on a blog somewhere, I copied it from an earlier date. In any case: Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952. McCain was not a natural born US citizen at birth! He was not even a US citizen at all until he was naturalized! [link to wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us] |
The Good Reverend Roger User ID: 330206 United States 02/14/2008 11:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Good Reverend Roger User ID: 330206 United States 02/14/2008 11:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365627 United States 02/14/2008 11:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952. Quoting: The Good Reverend RogerDoes the law specify that it is not retroactive? The law tells you when it became effective, nearly 20 years after McCain was naturalized. No it is not retroactive, you can read the wording for yourself in the link I gave. |
skytoucher User ID: 329948 United States 02/14/2008 11:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Link for anyone unsure about the original 13th: [link to www.amendment-13.org] Check the time line, documents, and rebuttal sections. |
The Good Reverend Roger User ID: 330206 United States 02/14/2008 11:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | THIS LAW DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL June 27, 1952. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365627Does the law specify that it is not retroactive? The law tells you when it became effective, nearly 20 years after McCain was naturalized. No it is not retroactive, you can read the wording for yourself in the link I gave. (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States HORRIBLE BASTARD. |