Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 14, 2020 6:41:30 GMT
Sometimes when a political faction knows it's doomed, it resorts to the sort of desperate clinging to straws as illustrated in the OP.
I'm not sure that we need more evidence of the likely Biden/Harris victory. The final vote may just be a formality. That is why this election is at such risk. If the election is fair and free, the Democrats win handily. That is why it is so unlikely that the election will be fair and free. It's sad how many here are so willing to sell their souls to a Mob Boss named Trump. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 14, 2020 8:47:56 GMT
Just to run out a scenario, say Biden and Kamala win, and one minute after inauguration, Biden says he's mentally unfit and resigns. Now Kamala is president. Then say Jamaica's lawyers look through their law and find that Kamala is a Jamaican citizen according to their law. And then say that as a Jamaican citizen, they have certain jurisdiction over her. Now the US president is under the jurisdiction of Jamaica. Then what?
Jamaican this up, nimrod racist fascist pig that you are.
Stuff it.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 8:54:51 GMT
So there are cases where a child born abroad to US citizen parents would gain US citizenship at birth. What we need to know for Kamala is what Jamaican and Indian law are on the matter. If they had similar laws to the US at the time of Kamala's birth, she might have been born a citizen of one of those countries, or both. She might therefore be under some jurisdiction of those countries. In which case, whether Kamala meets the criterion in the Constitution regarding jurisdiction may be complicated.
I must have missed where in U.S. Code, immigration laws, and the U.S. Constitution it says we base our citizenship requirements on what other countries citizenship laws are. Care to point that one out to me?
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 10:17:44 GMT
I must have missed where in U.S. Code, immigration laws, and the U.S. Constitution it says we base our citizenship requirements on what other countries citizenship laws are. Care to point that one out to me?
The Constitution says citizenship requires jurisdiction, but if another country can claim jurisdiction because a person is a citizen of that country, then there is a conflict of jurisdiction.
Uh no, jurisdiction deals with things like diplomatic immunity. How another country deals with citizenship is irrelevant to how the U.S. classifies citizenship.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 10:31:09 GMT
Uh no, jurisdiction deals with things like diplomatic immunity. How another country deals with citizenship is irrelevant to how the U.S. classifies citizenship.
You're looking in the wrong place. What you want to look for is what jurisdiction the US has over its citizens abroad. For instance, if a US citizen abroad breaks a tax law, fails to pay child support, or other such thing, the US may have jurisdiction to arrest the person. I don't know if those specifics are right, but that's the kind of thing we're looking for, where the US has jurisdiction over US citizens living in other countries. But in the present case, we have to reverse that and look at what jurisdiction Jamaica and India have over their citizens living in other countries. If they have any, then that means the US does not have complete jurisdiction over citizens of Jamaica and India, and therefore such a person may not meet the 14th amendment jurisdiction requirement for citizenship.
Uh no, I was showing an example of what jurisdiction actually means in relation to the U.S. Constitution. You have yet to provide ANY sources for your bullshit. Mostly because it just constitutes your wishful thinking, not actual facts.
Oh, and for a similar example:
In a 6–2 decision[117][118] issued on March 28, 1898,[119] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[120] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[121]
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[122] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][123][124] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][64] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[125]
Keep digging.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 11:07:12 GMT
Uh no, I was showing an example of what jurisdiction actually means in relation to the U.S. Constitution. You have yet to provide ANY sources for your bullshit. Mostly because it just constitutes your wishful thinking, not actual facts.
Oh, and for a similar example:
In a 6–2 decision[117][118] issued on March 28, 1898,[119] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[120] The opinion of the Court was written by Associate Justice Horace Gray and was joined by Associate Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[121]
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[122] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][123][124] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][64] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[125]
Keep digging.
What you provided re diplomatic immunity has to do with the jurisdiction of the country the person is in, but not with the jurisdiction of the country the person is a citizen of. A person may be subject to the laws of the country they are in (and so does not have diplomatic immunity), but there may be laws of the country they are a citizen of that they are also subject to. So the former country may have jurisdiction as far as their laws go, but that does not preclude jurisdiction of the latter country and its laws. For example, if a US citizen abroad breaks a US tax law, the US government may have jurisdiction to arrest that person in a foreign country (does it? I don't know), while at the same time that person is still under the jurisdiction of all the laws of the country he is in. Thus two countries have jurisdiction over that person. As for the Wong Kim Ark case, the definition of citizen in that case may not be sufficient for determining whether someone is a citizen who can be president. For example, say (1) Kamala is a citizen of Jamaica according to their laws; (2) Kamala becomes president; (3) Jamaica passes a law that says no citizen may dance the hoochie-koo at home or abroad, subject to arrest; and (4) Kamala dances the hoochie-koo. Now Jamaica will arrest our president. Given the problem this creates, the Supreme Court may need to redecide on this issue.
Irrelevant. She's a natural born citizen as she is not an immigrant. There is nothing in the Constitution saying a dual citizen is ineligible to be president. Stop embarrassing yourself [Although you are beyond that at this point].
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 11:28:24 GMT
Irrelevant. She's a natural born citizen as she is not an immigrant. There is nothing in the Constitution saying a dual citizen is ineligible to be president. Stop embarrassing yourself [Although you are beyond that at this point].
I'm not sure she's even a dual citizen, though the issues I have raised do give cause for concern about such a one becoming president. Let's get back to whether Kamala is a citizen. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, "the court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power." These were the dissenters, so they lost that argument. However, note that the argument that won may have been sufficient only for an ordinary citizen, but with regard to a citizen becoming president, it may not be sufficient, because of the diplomatic problems it causes. This added problem is reason for the Supreme Court to make a new decision on this particular case. And I would also like to note that of course the case of Kamala and Jamaica is silly, because who cares what Jamaica thinks. India is another matter. But let's take something like China, Israel, or Germany (CIG), important countries. Whatever law would be needed to be sufficient with regard to citizens of those countries would apply to citizens of all countries, including Jamaica. Say the US president has dual citizenship in the US and a CIG country. And say the CIG country passes a law about what their citizens can do abroad. And say the US president breaks that law. Now China, Israel, or Germany will seek extradition of our president. How could we allow our president to be put in such a position that another country could pass a law that our president is subject to? Say it was China. What would we do if China started demanding extradition of our president? Why would we even allow ourselves to be put in that position?
Another country's laws are irrelevant to the citizenry requirements of OUR country. We are ruled by the U.S. Constitution and its Supremacy Clause, not another country's laws. I studied law for 7 years, you are clearly clueless about constitutional law. Stick to being a "keyboard warrior" and babbling about bats on quarters. You are out of your league here.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 11:46:35 GMT
Another country's laws are irrelevant to the citizenry requirements of OUR country. We are ruled by the U.S. Constitution and its Supremacy Clause, not another country's laws. I studied law for 7 years, you are clearly clueless about constitutional law. Stick to being a "keyboard warrior" and babbling about bats on quarters. You are out of your league here.
Can a foreign country seek the extradition of one of their citizens living in the United States? If so, and such a citizen becomes president, we could wind up with a foreign country seeking extradition of our president. Of course we would deny the request, but the diplomatic problems that would cause are not negligible, and further, our president may feel restrained by fear of breaking the law of another country he is citizen of and causing the diplomatic debacle that would follow. We cannot have our president manipulated by other countries in that way. When the meaning of the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment was decided in the Wong Kim Ark case, it was decided in the case of an ordinary citizen, with all of the concerns that would appertain to that. Under that decision, Kamala is a citizen. But in the special case of a citizen becoming president, there is a different set of concerns that were not relevant to the Wong Kim Ark case and so played no part in the decision. Given this new set of concerns, and the problems the previous decision may cause, the Supreme Court must hear this case and decide if it too broadly defined "citizen" in its previous decision.
Extradition involves treaties/agreements with other countries. That would fall under the U.S. Constitution as well [Treaties]. The U.S. can refuse extradition if we so choose and, considering Executive Privilege makes you immune from pretty much everything nowadays, that would be an easy refusal.
There are no concerns. This is settled law under the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court cases. I'm sure the court system is as tired of conspiracy theorist morons as most other Americans are.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 12:09:32 GMT
Extradition involves treaties/agreements with other countries. That would fall under the U.S. Constitution as well [Treaties].
There are no concerns. This is settled law under the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court cases. I'm sure the court system is as tired of conspiracy theorist morons as most other Americans are.
Therefore the same Constitution that defines a citizen and determines who can be president may also require that the US extradite the president to a foreign country, thus giving a foreign country the power to create laws that would force such extradition, and allowing a foreign country to use threats of making such laws to control our president. This is obviously unacceptable. The Supreme Court must be given a chance to untangle this contradiction. Making up scenarios that will never happen and would be overrode by the current constraints of Executive Privilege doesn’t make you any less wrong about citizenship requirements. If you don’t like it, advocate for another constitutional amendment. Because at the moment, your arguments are dead in the water. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 14, 2020 12:57:47 GMT
Evidently not, or this thread wouldn't exist. But feel free to make a case supporting your pontification. The case is the plain wording of the Constitution. This thread exists because people want to try and twist into a pretzel to justify a position. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 14, 2020 14:10:22 GMT
^ Exactly what I'm talking about; twisting themselves into a pretzel to justify a position.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 14, 2020 14:50:57 GMT
That's a pretty specious statement based on the fact that your argument is based on a SCOTUS case rather than the text of the Constitution only. You must be responding to the wrong person, because I haven't cited a SCOTUS case. |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 14, 2020 15:24:02 GMT
Paleo is so rattled by how stupid he is looking, he doesn’t even know who he is responding to. Doesn’t help he is using Newsweek and Heritage opinion pieces as opposed to Supreme Court decisions and U.S. Constitution Amendments.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 14, 2020 23:07:41 GMT
It is premature to take any position until we have heard from the Supreme Court. So, you just wait for people to tell you what to think? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,526
|
Post by thor on Aug 14, 2020 23:50:45 GMT
The twat that wrote this opined that we should disregard fringe challenges to a candidates Constitutional eligibility in regards to Ted Cruz. Just sayin'.
Clearly, he is terrified of the possibility of another black President.
As is Paleo.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 15, 2020 0:54:33 GMT
^ Exactly what I'm talking about; twisting themselves into a pretzel to justify a position. One of my favorite groups...
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 15, 2020 15:29:41 GMT
Paleo is so rattled by how stupid he is looking, he doesn’t even know who he is responding to. Doesn’t help he is using Newsweek and Heritage opinion pieces as opposed to Supreme Court decisions and U.S. Constitution Amendments. Talk about looking stupid and rattled....you know very well that the Newsweek and Heritage pieces directly addressed the proper interpretation of the "Supreme Court decisions and U.S. Constitution Amendments". No, it's just horseshit. Greg |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 16, 2020 16:07:13 GMT
It it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and soils itself like a duck, I'm liable to mistake it for a duck. Since you are peddling the same inane, wrongheaded conclusion that was mistakenly rendered by SCOTUS in 1898, I incorrectly assumed that you had embraced that nonsense rather than the known definition of jurisdiction at the time of the 14th Amendment's approval (an amendment which was never legally ratified, btw).
Setting aside Wong, you have incorrectly interpreted the word "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment. Did that make it all better? Definitely got under your skin there. Regarding the interpretation of jurisdiction, I would suggest reading the debates in the Congressional Globe, because they explicitly addressed this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 16, 2020 22:11:36 GMT
Definitely got under your skin there. Regarding the interpretation of jurisdiction, I would suggest reading the debates in the Congressional Globe, because they explicitly addressed this issue. Only vermin and insects get under my skin....if you'd like to volunteer as one of those, I'm certainly not one to object. And your link to all Congressional Debates from 1833-1873 is tantamount to pointing to a haystack and saying, "there's your needle". Try making you feeble case with specifics next time
The 14th Amendment: " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/Bug house lawyers... Greg |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 16, 2020 23:19:30 GMT
Paleo is so rattled by how stupid he is looking, he doesn’t even know who he is responding to. Doesn’t help he is using Newsweek and Heritage opinion pieces as opposed to Supreme Court decisions and U.S. Constitution Amendments. Talk about looking stupid and rattled....you know very well that the Newsweek and Heritage pieces directly addressed the proper interpretation of the "Supreme Court decisions and U.S. Constitution Amendments". The proper interpretation of court opinions are what they state in the majority/plurality decisions, not what you wish for them to say. I’ve already given an outline of what they said and articles from Newsweek and blogs from Heritage/Federalist won’t change that. Don’t like it? Try adding an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Until then, you are wrong. |
|
