Skip to main content

Doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prove that to be a US citizen, you must have full allegiance to the United States?

Sykesville, MD |

I have a current case and several attorneys here are saying that you only need to be born here to be a citizen. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it clearly states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"

And isn't that further confirmed by the naturalization oath of allegiance, which clearly states:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"

+ Read More

Attorney answers 3

Posted

No, because people are allowed to have dual citizenship in the United States.

Representative Michelle Bachman, for example,was eligible for dual citizenship with the united States and Switzerland since 1978, which she applied for this year.

The information provided is based solely on the general information given and should not be construed as legal advice for your specific situation.

Asker

Posted

AND, Michelle Bachmann also changed her mind after she was hit with thousands of emails telling her she could not run for President if she did! Could you then explain the text of the Civil Rights Act and the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance. Also, could you explain this text from the co-author of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment, which is on record in the Congressional Debates: "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 Also, explain this text from the author of the 14th amendment: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

Benjamin I. Hirsch

Benjamin I. Hirsch

Posted

Apparently you wish to argue your case here. If you wish me to brief the subject for you, be advised that I charge a retainer for my time and service. Upon receipt of your check, I will gladly commence work.

Asker

Posted

Thanks for the offer, but I just got an email back from a MD state delegate who is an attorney, who will be helping me out with my case. Yea, I knew one of them would step up after looking at the facts!

Posted

No, that act is inclusionary not exclusionary. If you meet the criteria, you get automatic citizenship. If not, you apply for citizenship. Naturalization is one such way. Also, you do not need to HAVE full allegiance, as the oath is administered on an honor system. Once a US citizen, you are not required to reaffirm full allegance, which is how people can gain dual citizenship in countries that do not require citizens to have renounced prior citizenship.

So far, this is free to you. Until you pay a fee, I am not your lawyer and you are not my client, so you take any free advice at your sole risk. I am licensed in IL, MO, TX and am a Reg. Pat. Atty. so advice in any other jurisdiction is general advice and should be confirmed with an attorney licensed in that jurisdiction.

Asker

Posted

EXACTLY and Obama did NOT meet the criteria at birth. At birth, Obama was a British Subject and he even admits this! Thanks for proven he is illegal!

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

That proves nothing of the sort, Mr. Trump, it has nothing to do with Obama, you foolish birther. He was born in Hawaii and he has never admitted being a British Subject.

Asker

Posted

Where is your proof that he was born in Hawaii, You have NONE? And yes, he did say he was a british subject at birth and factcheck.org has even proven that and everyone knows that fact check LOVES Obama! http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/ NOW, tell me I'm worng!!!

Asker

Posted

OOPS, I meant WRONG! Also, explain this, from the 14th amendment debates. It's Senator Lyman Trumbull, who is explanining what subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant and the "author" of the clause agrees with him! EXPLAIN THIS: What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, along with it's author, Senator Jacob Howard. So I think they knew what THEY meant: "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 So this proves that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same exact thing as "not subject to any foreign power" Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

You should go to www.barackobama.com and donate to atone for your false accusations.

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

You are wrong, Donald. His long form birth certificate was released and you know it. What part of that don't you get, Donald? Even Romney, who hates to accept anything favoring Obama, says Obama is US born and a US citizen. You should not vote for Romney since according to you he is a liar. Maybe you could do a write-in vote for "The Donald". You conveniently neglected to mention that factcheck.org states that Obama was born in Hawaii. What part of that don't you get, birther? According to even your source (factcheck.org) Obama never gave allegiance to Kenya and has always had full allegiance to the US, so there is absolutely no problem with his childhood automatic Kenyan citizenship. What part of that did you miss? The point is, of course, that 2 day olds have no clue about things like citizenship and allegiance so Kenya allows gives them temporary citizenship during their minority and then requires renunciation of other citizenships if one wants to make that temporary citizenship permanent. Obama did not renounce his US citizenship. Of course, you know that, which makes you wrong. Kenya does not require allegiance from minors for citizenship there. Are you claiming it does? Obama automatically lost Kenyan citizenship on his 23rd birthday by virtue of having been born in the US and having been since birth a US citizen with full allegiance to the US. Are you claiming otherwise? You are a liar when you say "everyone knows that fact check LOVES Obama". The vast majority of people have never even heard of factcheck.org, and of those that have heard of factcheck.org, few have any opinion as to whether it favors Obama, and only nutjobs like you think otherwise. Of course, since the truth favors Obama and factcheck.org endeavors to be truthful, to nutjobs like you that means they LOVE Obama. One thing is for sure. Factcheck.org does not love kooks like you. In short, you are a totally discredited extremist birther fool. > -- *Bruce Burdick* *Creating Protections & Protecting Creations *SM BURDICK LAW FIRM, 3832 Omega Street, Alton, IL 62002 beb@burdlaw.com www.burdlaw.com 618-462-3450 Fax 618-208-1712 My email policy is posted at www.burdlaw.com/webwarn.htm

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

This is a legal answer and referral site. Why don't you move on to www.nutjob.com or www.kookextremist.com so you can find someone who want to hear your crap.

Asker

Posted

hahaha, his long form birth certificate? It's a FORGERY, and you KNOW IT! I'm sure being an attorney, you are smart enough to REALIZE evidence, when you see it. So I suggest you look at this evidence, before you go calling me a liar! Full Video of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference - Obama Eligibility Cold Case Investigation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPabF7yd7kk

Asker

Posted

Oh and I am not Donald. I'm a female and my name is Tracy. It's on my MD ballot challenge, if you'd like me to prove it! Whether Obama is US Born or a US citizen is irrelevant. Art 2, Sec 1 clearly says "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;" Now since you are claiming that Obama is just a citizen, are you then claiming that Obama was ALIVE at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? Are you saying that Obama is over 200 years old?

Asker

Posted

You conveniently neglected to mention that factcheck.org is an extention of the Annenberg Foundation, in which Obama and Bill Ayers (The Terrorist) sat on the board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge, from 1995 to 1999. I can use factcheck because they are FOR Obama and would not make up lies about him. However to use them as your source, is a total conflict of interest! Oh and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was shut down, because after Obama and his partner in crime dished out nearly $500 million to schools, they found out there was no change whatsoever. I'm sure the money was funneled to a lot of places, other than schools. Oh yeah, Bill Ayers had a school in Chicago, did he get grants?

Asker

Posted

Pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama is a British Subject: Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizenship by birth or descent. 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth;

Asker

Posted

A natural born citizen must be BORN that way, according to natural law. You can not BECOME a natural born citizen, after the fact! It is impossible to ba a US natural born citizen, if your father is not a US Citizen. My claims are supported by Supreme Court case The Venus, which states. Don't forget to read the last line! The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall: “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Asker

Posted

It looks as if I've disputed everyone of your NONSENSE claims! Would you like a chance to amend?

Asker

Posted

Of course you'd like me to leave because you can't deal with the truth! You are extremely misinformed on this issue and I suggest your research the facts! One more thing, explain to me why the Kenyan Parliament says Obama is "NOT a native American"...And that he's a "son of the soil of that country". 2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

You're a nutjob, Donald Tracey. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp As to your kooky claim that Obama admitted he was not born in the US, that was a discredited clipped together YouTube video. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/notborn.asp "Obama's birth certificate was a forgery. Everyone knows that." FALSE http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp See Snopes debunks your BS, Donald Tracey nutjob kook.

Asker

Posted

Why did you ignore the Kenyan Parliament video? Does that mean you can not dispute it? You can call me whatever you'd like, but still EXPLAIN the facts that I posted! Explain why the Kenyan Parliament, The Kenyan Ambassador to the US, Michelle Obama AND Obama's grandmother ALL said that he was born in Kenya...can you please explain why they all say this? I am a female, so Donald does not fit and it's spelled Tracy, without an "e" as you can see in my complaint (which I am aware needs fixing. I have a MD Delegate attorney, who will be helping me amend it, to get everything right) http://www.scribd.com/doc/86426592/Maryland-Ballot-Challenge-Petition-to-remove-Obama-from-the-ballot So let me get this straight, you are claiming that Obama is a natural born citizen, pursuant to the 14th amendment? Sir, you are aware that the 14th amendment is a LAW, right? And you are aware that people who become citizens BY LAW, are naturalized citizens, right? And you are aware that naturalized citizens can NOT be President, right? I think you answered your own mistake! Oh, and one other think...Sen. Trumbull & Sen. Howard worte the citizenship clauses in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment and during the 14th amendment debates, they are both on record explaining their intent of the clause and I quote: Trumbull: "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 Howard (the author of the clause) agrees: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16 The Honorable John Bingham, wrote the 14th amendment also agrees as we can see from a quote on record by him in 1862: 1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639): “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif No, my claim that Obama said he was born in Kenya, came for a booklet that was written by his publicist and he wrote his own bio, see the proof for yourself: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566 Yes the birth certificate WAS proven a forgery, the criminal investigation that proved this, had a press conference and showed everyone the facts, it's right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPabF7yd7kk Show me how you can explain ALL THIS AWAY!

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

Long-winded nutjob kook Donald (as in birther The Donald - you birther kooks' hero): The 14th Amend. is 1868, your Bingham BS is 1862. The 14th Amendment is the supreme law of the land. Your 1862 stuff is just some speech that is not law and did not make it into the Amendment. Give it up, Donald, you can never win - because you are simply WRONG. I'd rather rely on Scopes than your thoroughly discredited fake local sheriff press conference, which Scopes says is a fake. Even most of the comments to the Arpaio spoof YouTube video recognize it as a fake. You make yourself look stupid relying on discredited fake YouTube videos as "proof" of anything, let alone a constitutional law question. All it proves is that you start from the conclusion and work backwards trying to phoney up fake evidence. So, all your BS goes away again. Go back to your mental hospital, Donald. Your birther BS makes you a joke.

Asker

Posted

Sorry, but Alinsky Tactics do not work on me. I'm immune! Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (#5) 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." So now, since that is TOO MUCH for you to handle at once (long-winded), I will post one at a time, so you can comprehend them EACH!

Asker

Posted

I know the quote was 1862 and I know exactly when the 14th amendment was written and the author WAS John Bingham, the same one who said the quote. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1866 and after passage in the Senate, it was sent to the House and ONCE AGAIN, the HONORABLE John Bingham states on record in the debates: "I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332 Show me where I am wrong!

Asker

Posted

lolol, how can you say the conference is FAKE? They are SAYING that the birth certificate is a forgery, they are SHOWING YOU. If you watch the video, there is no possible way of faking it, they are showing the document is adobe and showing you the errors in the BC. You can ignore it all you want, but anyone else who looks at it can see that the evidence can NOT be disputed!

Asker

Posted

NONE of my videos have ever been discredited and I guarantee you if you watch them, there is no possible way you can dispute my evidence! I know people like to say Youtube is BS for proof, but my YOUTUBE videos are all sourced with government documents, so if you are saying my facts are bogus, then you are claiming that the Congressional records are bogus! hahaha, is that what you are saying?

Asker

Posted

You make yourself look even more stupid by ignoring facts that are right in front of your face! I dare you to prove my videos wrong, YOU CAN'T! That is why you are ignoring them! I get it all the time. People get upset and then call me names, because they don't know how to handle the truth. They know they are wrong but just can't admit it, so they lie and say I'm wrong, but can't dispute anything! Others will read and see that I am right, you can keep your head in the sand...just remember me, when the truth DOES come out! TRY AND DEBUNK ANY OF THEM, I DARE YA! Obama literary agent claims Obama was Kenyan-born ~ Now DOZENS more articles confirm the same! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1grt5uehak 2012 Vetting Obama: 100% proof Obama is a USURPER ~ 100% sourced w/govt documents http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE 2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA 2012 Vetting Obama NEW EVIDENCE on Obama's Birth Place ~ Is this the REAL Certificate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lar_bth5NOI 2012 Vetting Obama: BARRY SOETORO ILLEGAL PRESIDENT ~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ

Asker

Posted

I'm sorry if the truth hurts, Bruce, but eventually you are going to have to accept it, why not now?

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

This is not a discussion forum, it is a legal answer forum. I have already discredited you as being a kook extremist with an agenda so further discussion is pointless. Goodby Donald.

Asker

Posted

You have discredited NOTHING and anyone who reads the comments can see that you ignored all my facts and just called me names. That's not very professional Bruce and it's obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about... Just one question Brucie, is the 14th amendment a LAW? HAHAHAHAHA, you know you lost! And I am well aware that his isn't a discussion forum. I have a case I'm involved in and I'm trying to find answers to some questions I have...but how ironic is it, that "attorneys" don't know how to comprehend "facts"? That is just hilarious!

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

Law : 2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. So, in the relevant sense for defining the meaning of "natural born" the 14th amendment is a consitutional amendment not a "law" as it was not enacted by the legislative branch, it was enacted by the states pursuant to the . http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1111 Your kook comments are indeed hilarious. The game is already over. My guy is in the White House, the State of Hawaii officially confirms his US birth, everyone in a position of relevant authority recongizes it (including his opponent), and your guy is a looney tunes rogue sheriff in AZ that nearly everyone is laughing at. So who won?

Asker

Posted

I don;t think your guy is staying in the White House. Did you watch the Florida ballot channenge hearin on Monday. Maybe you should listen, it's very interesting. We've got another FL challenge in late June, we have another in July and then we have MD in August! At least now we are finally getting the judges to LOOK at the facts: Florida Court Hearing: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/video-of-june-20-fl-obama-ballot-challenge-hearing-voeltz-v-obama Sorry, but this is NO GAME and it is FAR FROM OVER! You are aware that a US birth doens NOT make you a natural born citizen, right? Keep on laughin Pops, you haven't WON anything. You're gonna find out that I am right and that you have no clue what you are talking about! You can just leave your apology here, when the truth is finally out!

Asker

Posted

Being a natural born citizen, means according to natural law, that you were naturally born a citizen. If you are not naturally born a citizen, then the only other way to become a citizen is by an act of the Government! A Natural Born Citizen as defined by Natural Law: De Vattel’s The Law of Nations, § 212 “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Emphasis added). AND I HAVE SCOTUS PRECEDENT to validate my claims (straight from Vattel's Law of Nations, WORD FOR WORD) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Chief Justice Marshall: “The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the 24 writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." Whatcha gonna do NOW, you gonna fight Supreme Court Precedent! :

Asker

Posted

NOT EVERYONE agrees with you! Here's a relevant authority for ya: Judge Thomas Parker, an appellate justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, said obiter in a judgment given on March 27, 2012, that documentation put before the Court by Mr. Hugh McInnish, a petitioner for an order of mandamus against Mr. Obama, “if presented to the appropriate forum, … would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short-form’ and the ‘long-form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public”. Constitutional EXPERT Atty., Dr. Herb Titus on natural born citizenship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 I've got more if you need them!

Posted

The Constitution refers to "natural born citizens." A person born in the United States is considered a citizen. In fact, statutes are being proposed to limit this where the new-born's parents are not citizens and there are serious questions about their constitutionality.

A person born in the United States does not need to prove that they are not subject to a foreign power in order to get a social security card, driver's license or voter's registration. I'm sure that you didn't.

The important goal of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to make all slaves into citizens of the United States despite state laws that had previously denied them that state. It went on to prohibit the states from denying state citizenship to any citizen of the United States.

Asker

Posted

Yes, but a "citizen" is NOT a "natural born citizen". If they were the same, there would be no need for redundancy in Article 2, Section 1, which states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;" If you are claiming that they are the SAME, they why are BOTH in the clause? Why doe3sn't it just say "Citizen"?

Asker

Posted

I already know the intent of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment was passed to render the Civil Rights Act Constitutional, since it wasn't amended to the Constitution. The 14th amendment citizenship clause was just declaring what was already law (The Civil Rights Act). My claims are validated by Senator Jacob Howard (the author) during the 14th amendment debates... "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Now if you say being born here makes you a citizen, why are they saying "born within the limits" AND "subject to the jurisdiction"? Didn't you say WITHIN THE LIMITS is SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION? If they are the same, why the "AND"? In the SAME record, we have Senator Trumbull and Senator Howard, explaining their intent of the clause: Trumbull: "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 So this proves that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same exact thing as "not subject to any foreign power" Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer