See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Fall of the South: A Sesquicentennial Wake By Bill Buppert
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=3964
Published: Apr 10, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-04-10 12:45:59 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 4566
Comments: 204
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” -Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee: A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman. On this day, 9 April in 1865, the Lincolnian project to enslave the entire nation under the yoke of Union supremacy, central planning and a country administered by national political fiat and the naked fist of government aggression prevailed. The South and the Confederacy for all it flaws died at Appomattox. Lee is often erroneously quoted as saying the following: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand. Supposed made to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870), as quoted in The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, pp. 497-500.” No lesser literary luminaries and historians have said this is false than Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Dade Foote, Jr. and Bruce Catton. This appears to be historical myth-making by Mr. Dabney. My casual research and interest in Lee find this simply does not fit in his character; now there were certainly Confederate worthies who professed such sympathies. Lee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West. A far more competent and talented warrior than the base incompetency and abject martial malpractice of George Washington; he joins the ranks of Douglas Haig (WWI) and Pompey (Rome) for an exaggerated sense of warrior skills untethered to reality. Lee was at the forefront of a Confederate high tide that was destroyed by the Gettysburg debacle and worsening political travails in the South as Davis tried to emulate the Sovietized system of the Union to salvage a victory. At least the South fought to fight a just war in defending their own soil from invasion. I am amused at Union apologists who claim that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. Let me employ a tortured analogy; you buy a house and the owners refuse to vacate and bring friends with guns to ensure you can’t possession of your rightful property. Such was the case in Sumter where the Fort commanded the entry and exit to richest transportation hub in the south employing constant threats against the indigenous community it sat in the middle of. The War Between the States was a Second American Revolution, the last gasp of trying to unshackle the nation from the Constitutional straitjacket that extinguished liberty at every turn. Alexander Stephens, the Vice president of the Confederacy had other ideas. He is no hero of abolition nor a moral man in regards the disposition of humans in chains: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Lincoln claimed this was his only disagreement with Stephens but the curious ability of Lincoln to free all slaves outside his legal jurisdiction and maintain it within his control regime. Historian Clarence Carson has astutely commented: “It should be noted, however, that as of the moment it was issued and to the best of Lincoln’s knowledge, the proclamation did not free a single slave. It did not free a slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, nor in any state or portions of a state within the Confederacy occupied by Union troops…In short, Lincoln freed only those slaves over which he had no control. No doubt that was by design.” As Al Benson Jr. notes: “What it amounted to was, that, as an effective propaganda tool, the proclamation freed only those slaves that the North had no jurisdiction over and it didn’t free any slaves over which the North had some jurisdiction.” Author Webb Garrison, a former dean of Emory University noted that: “…the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – not an edict issued in a dramatic move to better the lives of blacks. No one knew this better than the author of the proclamation. Nine months after it was issued, he told Salmon P. Chase ‘The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure’.” There was no major politician except Charles Sumner on either side interested in the least in emancipation much less abolition of black chattel slavery. Sumner would famously ask Lincoln: “Do you know who is at this moment the largest slaveholder in the United States?” Sumner informed Lincoln that he was the largest slaveholder because the President “holds all the slaves of the District of Columbia.” This ended on paper in 1862. This war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit. The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. Go guerrilla indeed, what would the future have wrought? Poster Comment: "The birth of Empire. Not a damned living soul has lived under the Constitution as it was intended in 1787-1791 – or at least as it was said to be intended."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-141) not displayed.
.
.
.
#142. To: All (#141)
(Edited)
This problem has been wrongfully imposed on America at least as far back as Chester A. Arthur, who should not even have been Vice President, much less ascendant to the Presidency. Republicans back then, though, had enough respect for the Constitution to not make him a candidate for another term when his non-qualification became evident. Now, multiple Republicans who are not qualified as natural born citizens are attempting to run for the Presidency as a ploy to get Hispanic votes. In the case of Jeb Bush, who is a natural born citizen (afaik), his wife is potentially an alternate route for the GOP to increase Hispanic votes in tandem with his "immigration reform" promos. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The 14th Amendment says: 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One can be a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen - that's it. There is no third option.
By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville. OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit.
You're living in the same dream world as your mother. Liberals think they can speak realities into being.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One can be a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen - that's it. There is no third option. That Amendment isn't about natural born citizenship. It only speaks of basic citizenship status in-general and the key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children born here to a foreign parent are subject to the country of their parents' citizenship and acquire that citizenship by birth -- foreign allegiance and obligation problems that our Founders intended to shield the Presidency and Vice Presidency from being compromised by. Only natural born citizenship by birth here to American-only parents (both the father and the mother) does not require legislation to determine. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
There are two types of citizens of the US...naturalized and natural born. There is not a third class. Obama was not naturalized, thus... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Uh...yes it is...in fact, it is *exactly* what that amendment is about...it once and for all defined who is a US Citizen, how they could become a citizen and what legal protections they were afforded. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Again, no... IF what you promote here was to be true, what other foreign laws are applicable to people in the US? Can France sue a person born of French parents residing in the US, in a US court for the French taxes those parents owed? According to you, France could. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
2.OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever. 3. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. 1. What logic leads you to that conclusion? 2. It is so lame, it couldn't be a forgery. It looks exactly like it would look if the original were bound (along with other birth certificates) and photocopied onto security paper. All anyone ever gets is a COPY of the original document. It is the seal and signature stamp that makes it genuine and legal. 3. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something I rarely say - I am correct.
I know you don't intend to claim that non-citizens of the United States are not subject to our laws while in our country, but that is what you're saying. The exception would be diplomats, and other officials of foreign governments. Think diplomatic immunity. Citizenship is either inherited at birth through one or both parents who are, themselves US citizens no matter where in the world they are born, or by birth on US soil, no matter what citizenship their parents hold. Jus soli…(Latin: right of the soil)[1] is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2] As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere. Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural or other origins. (definitions from Wikipedia) Obama was born to a US citizen mother, on US soil. That makes him a natural born citizen by jus soli and by jus sanguinis. If you know where it says differently in law, or the Constitution, please let me know.
3. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. 1. What logic leads you to that conclusion? 2. It is so lame, it couldn't be a forgery. It looks exactly like it would look if the original were bound (along with other birth certificates) and photocopied onto security paper. All anyone ever gets is a COPY of the original document. It is the seal and signature stamp that makes it genuine and legal. 3. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something I rarely say - I am correct. 1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning! 2. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here.
Can France sue a person born of French parents residing in the US, in a US court for the French taxes those parents owed? According to you, France could. No. According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them. As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship ... I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well. Ref. The War of 1812 impressment issue. If you think our Founders' intent wasn't to guard the Presidency and Vice Presidency from the possibility of such happenstances, as well as compromised allegiance and other foreign obligation entanglements, think again. I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas. Wishful thinking on your part, evidently, but clearly an incorrect supposition. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I chose France for a reason. Under French law (or what was law at some point in my life), a child can be held liable for the taxes that were owed by the parents. Since you claim that the child is subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign parent then my point stands to reason. The only way that it could not be, would be if the child had protection under US law. The 14th amendment establishes that anyone BORN or NATURALIIZED is a citizen of the US...that child was NOT naturalized...thus he was born a citizen of the US and could not be compelled by a US court to comply with French law...not so with the parents... As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship .. They could only be held responsible for acts committed outside of the US within the jurisdiction of the other nation. Nor, btw, are they subject to recall by the other nation, unlike ambassadors or attaches... I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well. The US never considered impressment legal. IN fact, one of the roots of the War of 1812 was impressment. I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas. The plain language of Article II Section I SS5: 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... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen? --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Uh...no...he requested a copy of his BC a couple of months before the nominating convention and not only posted it but allowed a member of the press to examine it... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Vague as hell. More specific: The article cites Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse investigation. Since you support a lying, sanguinary, communistic, monstrous criminal bastard as pseudo- president and the Sheriff works to effectively solve real problems foisted on us by people like your Obozo, I feel perfectly confident in rejecting you as having any credibility on this and going with his viewpoint. Obummer is a lying, sanguinary, communistic, monstrous criminal bastard, and you know it.
Hawaii states that it is not a forgery. Game over... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Oh, yeah, a state government can be trusted to give the straight story! Game over, uh huh! Because of dementia of your worldview and lameness of your arguments.
Lacking any proof other than stating that the then registrar has a funny name and that Barack Sr chose to call himself African rather than the American term "Negro" as proof of a forgery is a bit...well...not very compelling... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
There's nothing dumber that liberalism, unless it's coming here and expecting to convert people to it.
I'm not looking to do anything...but it was a poor choice of words for a forum and I've changed it...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Good! You admit you're purposeless. Please go away and stop wasting our time. Almost everybody else here is looking to get at ultimate timely truths, become better informed, test their wits and forensic skills. You were provided with a good mind, that's obvious, but a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Are you Jewish?
Not since Jesus... Almost everybody else here is looking to get at ultimate timely truths... On the internet? --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
No, here in the forum of course. Not since Jesus -- what does that mean?
Roses Are Reddish Violets Are Bluish If It Wasn't For Christmas... We'd All Be Jewish... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Correct. No it isn't. Foreigners present here of any sort are not permitted by the Constitution to disregard America's laws as subjects of other government(s), nor does being subject to the U.S. jurisdiction thereof regarding our nation's laws and territory or those of our States amount to a conferring of citizenship status for them. They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war. Jus soli…(Latin: right of the soil)[1] is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2] As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere. Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural or other origins. (definitions from Wikipedia) Obama was born to a US citizen mother, on US soil. That makes him a natural born citizen by jus soli and by jus sanguinis. If you know where it says differently in law, or the Constitution, please let me know. I know the difference between Jus soli and Jus sanguinis. I think it's you who doesn't quite because you proceeded to blur those citizenship definitions generally that you posted as if synonymous with natural born citizenship which, in reality, they are not. Native American Indians are a clear example of the 14th Amendment not being about Jus soli auto-birthright citizenship if simply born here, much less as a determinant of natural born citizenship -- not even by Jus sanguinis, too, of one parent or both having also been born here. Edit to add and clarify: It was long after the 14th Amendment and after WWI before Congress contrived to extend them citizenship by a decree infringing on their sovereignty, so as to increase tax revenues and somewhat decrease war debts thereby. Even so, one of the Liberty Bond issuances to finance WWI eventually defaulted. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The USCON makes it fairly clear that Indians are not US citizens and were treated as a separate nation of peoples until 1924...the fact that the US negotiated treaties with the various indigenous nations is ample evidence of that fact... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Yes, I had edited that into my post with an endnote and was working to further explain the situation. Likewise, "anchor babies" are also citizens of a separate nation or more through their mother's country/countries of citizenship (indigenous or otherwise); Mexico being an example of one that we've similarly negotiated a war treaty with. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Anchor babies are born in the US and subject to the laws hereof...How is that not congruent with the plain language of the 14th amendment? Some nations require that a foreign birth be registered before citizenship is established;... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Foreign residents/visitors/illegal aliens are also subject to the laws hereof. That doesn't equate to auto-citizenship status for them, nor for those born to them here as if specialer than the Native American Indians who were born within the United States.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
2. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here. 1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. What I love is the truth.
Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity. From Wikipedia: Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled…Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. snip It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government.
1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. It has nothing to do with superior or or inferior, any more than apples are superior to oranges. It has to do with the kind of people the founders intended to run this country. Having a nonwhite one only increases the social tension and messes people's heads up. People who want to change human nature regarding race might as well try to change the law of gravity. If Obama were merely living up to his campaign promises, I'd be all for him in view of the hell of life with Bushes, Clintons et al and no doubt the founders would have too. But he lied about everything and I and millions and millions of other people knew it from the first. Only liars and criminals are allowed anywhere near the nomination. If you're not seeing that, there's not much I can do for you. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. But the slavery of bygone centuries is totally irrelevant today when whites are being made strangers in their own countries and the entire population here is on the federal plantation and can't get off as long as Jews like Solomon and Adelson are picking out presidents for us. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. You've got your links on that, we've got ours. What you're describing is not the way I remember it at all, and in any case the BC is merely one kind of documents that are sealed. Is Wayne Allyn Root lying when he says he should be well aware of Obozo's time at Columbia, but there's nothing there? What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? It's not outrageous, but it's another way the BC's so flimsy. 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. Everybody here except you and war understand with no assistance that Obama is evil, those pulling his marionette strings and putting their words in his mouth even more so. It's called Freedom4um and liberalism is all about enslaving everybody. You persistently defend the worst president in amerikan history, ergo you don't belong here any more than Phyllis Schlafly belongs in Hillary's lesbian club. If you loved truth, you'd be helping to expose these evils, not rationalize them. There, you got me to blow another ten minutes on this -- don't expect an encore.
Thanks for those ten minutes - well said. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I chose France for a reason. Under French law (or what was law at some point in my life), a child can be held liable for the taxes that were owed by the parents. Since you claim that the child is subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign parent then my point stands to reason. The only way that it could not be, would be if the child had protection under US law. The 14th amendment establishes that anyone BORN or NATURALIIZED is a citizen of the US...that child was NOT naturalized...thus he was born a citizen of the US and could not be compelled by a US court to comply with French law...not so with the parents... They could only be held responsible for acts committed outside of the US within the jurisdiction of the other nation. Nor, btw, are they subject to recall by the other nation, unlike ambassadors or attaches... The US never considered impressment legal. IN fact, one of the roots of the War of 1812 was impressment. The plain language of Article II Section I SS5: 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... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen? As I've stated before, back in the early era of our nation, having an American father at the time of the child's birth was enough to qualify a child then as an American citizen -- but not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen unless both parents were Americans only at the time of their child's birth here. More recently in the last century, a son born abroad to an American diplomat father (and possibly the child's mother being an American, as well) lost his claim to American citizenship by choosing to stay overseas after adulthood. I think the country of his birth was France but would have to research that and would rather not right now. I think the tax law of France that you mentioned is unfair but mainly France's jurisdictional business internationally and not any remote-business of mine that I'm presently aware of. As I've tried to explain before, all foreigners who have babies born here might not want their child's nationality by birth to be compromised by auto-attachment of American citizenship. Perhaps that might be considered at some point by plentiful numbers of them as comparable to the War of 1812 impressment issue of our citizens being subjected to tyrannical control by Britain, a recent enemy of American memories in those years. Others shouldn't have to ponder going to war to stop America from claiming jurisdictional control over their child's citizenship identity or spend money to legally overturn the proclamation. Many foreigners don't even like America. Some probably don't even like being here on a business matter, sullied as it's become by misdirections. The natural born citizenship clause, a section of which you highlighted, makes a distinction between that higher citizenship standard and a more basic State Citizenship, which was the case for those of our Founding Fathers' timeframe who were Citizens of their State at the time of the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the Constitution -- none of whom, I'm confidant in saying, are still being classified as applicable candidate-exceptions to the natural born citizenship rule for Presidential or Vice Presidential office in this century. Whether in plain language by your readings or not, the 14th Amendment neither states nor implies any nullification of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship -- more complex than the assertions like yours as meaning anyone at all born here or born anywhere to an American parent, which could jeopardize our national security contrary to our Founders' intent of preventing foreign influence and obligation entanglements of the Presidency and Vice Presidency as best they could for us in America's best interest. Should be obvious, imo. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The "everybody understands" club doesn't sound like it represents freedom of thought to me. It sounds more like "we all walk in lock step here", which looks like a form of oppression. I don't think believing the evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen is "persistently" defending him. If you are correct that everyone here agrees with you, then you are also correct when you say I don't belong here. Phyllis Schlafly? Good grief!
Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were. What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You don't like Phyllis, there's REALLY something the matter with you. In addition to being admittedly not right about much!
They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war. You: Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity. From Wikipedia: Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled…Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. One of America's biggest problems is what politicians wrongfully presume is possible for them to get away with doing "conventionally" and "bindingly" by agreement/contract/treaty and such that isn't a Constitutionally authorized power enumerated for them to so act as officals of our government or even "implied" anywhere in the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination -- the "institutionalization" of "diplomatic immunity" for agents of foreign governments to be lawbreakers here being just one of multitudionous violative examples of their Unconstitutionality; and so: invalidity to govern as America's "authorities". It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government. Comparing to this example of no apparent diplomatic immunity protocols whatsoever extended by Paul Bremer or other acting U.S. officials in Iraq for this Iraqi Christian still on death row ... for the newfangled "crime" of having ever been an official of Saddam Hussein's government before we replaced it, I guess: ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
what started the whole birther movement What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there? Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. (You are no slouch in the deriding department) You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began.
Diplomatic immunity would not apply to Tariq Aziz.
Comments (182 - 204) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestthose who don't understand the difference between citizenship and natural born citizenship or who want to discard Constitutionality on that point.
#143. To: GreyLmist (#141)
For the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, which is not synonymous with citizenship in-general. It does not merely say that no person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President but "No person except a natural born Citizen"; meaning birth here to parents who are both American citizens at the time of it…
#144. To: lucysmom (#137)
(Edited)
Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not.
#145. To: war (#138)
#146. To: lucysmom (#143)
(Edited)
The 14th Amendment says:
#147. To: GreyLmist (#141)
For the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, which is not synonymous with citizenship in-general.
#148. To: GreyLmist (#146)
(Edited)
That Amendment isn't about natural born citizenship.
#149. To: GreyLmist (#146)
Children born here to a foreign parent are subject to the country of their parents' citizenship and acquire that citizenship by birth...
#150. To: NeoconsNailed (#144)
1. By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville.
#151. To: GreyLmist (#146)
That Amendment isn't about natural born citizenship. It only speaks of basic citizenship status in-general and the key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children born here to a foreign parent are subject to the country of their parents' citizenship and acquire that citizenship by birth -- foreign allegiance and obligation problems that our Founders intended to shield the Presidency and Vice Presidency from being compromised by. Only natural born citizenship by birth here to American-only parents (both the father and the mother) does not require legislation to determine.
#152. To: lucysmom (#150)
1. By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville. 2.OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever.
#153. To: war (#149)
(Edited)
IF what you promote here was to be true, what other foreign laws are applicable to people in the US?
#154. To: GreyLmist (#153)
(Edited)
According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them.
#155. To: NeoconsNailed (#152)
And he did balk
#156. To: war (#155)
http://www.storyleak.com/obama-birth-certificate-confirmed-forgery-according- top- experts/
#157. To: NeoconsNailed (#156)
http://www.storyleak.com/obama-birth-certificate-confirmed-forgery-according- top- experts/
#158. To: war (#157)
#159. To: NeoconsNailed (#158)
(Edited)
Oh, yeah, a state government can be trusted to give the straight story!
#160. To: war (#159)
#161. To: NeoconsNailed (#160)
#162. To: war (#161)
I'm not looking to do anything..
#163. To: NeoconsNailed (#162)
Are you Jewish?
#164. To: war (#163)
#165. To: NeoconsNailed (#164)
Not since Jesus -- what does that mean?
#166. To: lucysmom (#151)
(Edited)
I know you don't intend to claim that non-citizens of the United States are not subject to our laws while in our country,
but that is what you're saying.
The exception would be diplomats, and other officials of foreign governments. Think diplomatic immunity.
Citizenship is either inherited at birth through one or both parents who are, themselves US citizens no matter where in the world they are born, or by birth on US soil, no matter what citizenship their parents hold.
#167. To: GreyLmist (#166)
(Edited)
Native American Indians are a clear example of the 14th Amendment not being about Jus soli auto-birthright citizenship if simply born here
#168. To: war (#167)
(Edited)
The USCON makes it fairly clear that Indians are not US citizens and were treated as a separate nation of peoples until 1924...the fact that the US negotiated treaties with the various indigenous nations is ample evidence of that fact...
#169. To: GreyLmist (#168)
Likewise, "anchor babies" are also citizens of a separate nation or more through their mother's country/countries of citizenship.
#170. To: war (#169)
(Edited)
#171. To: NeoconsNailed (#152)
1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning!
#172. To: GreyLmist (#166)
They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war.
#173. To: lucysmom (#171)
#174. To: NeoconsNailed (#173)
There, you got me to blow another ten minutes on this -- don't expect an encore.
#175. To: war (#154)
According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them.
As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship ..
I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well.
I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas.
#176. To: NeoconsNailed (#173)
Everybody here except you and war understand with no assistance that Obama is evil, those pulling his marionette strings and putting their words in his mouth even more so. It's called Freedom4um and liberalism is all about enslaving everybody. You persistently defend the worst president in amerikan history, ergo you don't belong here any more than Phyllis Schlafly belongs in Hillary's lesbian club.
#177. To: lucysmom (#171)
(Edited)
the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human
what started the whole birther movement
#178. To: lucysmom (#176)
#179. To: lucysmom (#172)
Me: Foreigners present here of any sort are not permitted by the Constitution to disregard America's laws as subjects of other government(s),
You: snip
#180. To: GreyLmist (#177)
This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were.
#181. To: GreyLmist (#179)
Comparing to this example of no apparent diplomatic immunity protocols whatsoever extended by Paul Bremer or other acting U.S. officials in Iraq for this Iraqi Christian still on death row ... for the newfangled "crime" of having ever been an official of Saddam Hussein's government before we replaced it, I guess:
.
.
.