Tags:
I agree Roberto... the SCOTUS needs to define NBC status because of the mess the former courts and our pettifoggers have made of it... I also belive that the best vehicle for this action woulld be initiated by the Pressident issing an EO ending Birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens... that will cause the left to bring a law suite and the SCOTUS will have to act.
What I worry about is a DOJ that will throw the EO case in favor of allowing Birthright Citizenship to remain. I also, believe that a SCOTUS decision in favor of the President's EO would allow for the President to deport DACA children and all the children of illegal aliens who claim US Citizenship... in the past. We can deal with the effects on these children with a separate action in Congress... as Congress sees fit.
The law can't be retroactive. I was thinking, a DACA deal for birthright citizenship?
David...
Congress's legislative action in conjunction with a Presidential Amnesty/pardon for DESERVING DACA individuals may be the only way to deal with the DACA problem.... with so many involved and the number of years passed... Compasion and the costs to deport gives us little choice.
However, we must not permit criminals, dependent individuals, or the parents of DACA Children to remain... children under the age of 18 must leave with their parents but may return when 18 if they otherwise meet all the requirements for entry. All illegal alien parents must leave and properly apply for entry. No one who arrived in the last 3-4yrs. should be allowed to obtain amnesty... They must all leave and apply for legal entry.
Any enacting bill must eliminate birthright citizenship for illegal and legal aliens...
I agree. It'll be difficult, but we must control who comes here, when, where, why, and with what they can offer to this country. We're a country largely of immigrants, but we're not the the wide open country we were a couple of hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago.
Thanks Colonel.
i would add... A Natural Born Citizen needs no law to confirr sort out citizenship relationships... they have no other claim on citizenship than to be a US citizen...they need no naturalizaiion processto litigate their loyalty/citizenship. A Natural Born Citizen is a US Citizen the witness of their blood.. parents citizenship and place of birth.... they have no other citizenship claims or citizenship entanglements of any nature.
I agree.
An Art. II, § I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen is a person born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, with no foreign allegiances or civic attachments at birth.
But that's NOT current US law. So we need for the SCOTUS to act.
I suppose there is lower court precedent
Sen. McCain was born under the Jurisdiction of the US... being born in a US Naval Hospital ... similar to being born on a US Vessel at sea. Those born in a US Embassy, on US territory, protectorates, or at sea on a US registered vessel are born on US Soil... under the full US jurisdiciton of US law and the Constitution.
Notwithstanding the fact that McCain may not have been born on the U.S. base hospital as alleged, and, even if he was, the base itself had not been placed under U.S. jurisdiction by Congress until 11 months after McCain's birth; what makes McCain an nbC is the fact that both of his parents were U.S. citizens and the state of Panama had no constitutional attachments to McCain at birth.
As I understand it there were hearings in Congress that determined Sen. McCain was born on US Soil... .that the Naval Hospital was covered under the STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT WITH PANAMA to be under US Jurisdiction. As far as I know all US Military Hospitals are under US Jurisdiction ... even those on foreign soil ... due to status of forces agreemetns accessing such jurisdiction to the US Military. No military commander is going to put US Forces in a position where they are under the jurisdictxion of a foreign power... that is what status of forces agreements are all about... they are negotiated BEFORE US Military forces are operating on foreign soil.
This is an ever evolving field of law and regulatory abuse.... in recent years 'Status of Forces Agreements' have been weakened and the US has given up "territorial claims" of jurisdiction keepiing limited legal exemption from host nation criminal law in many cases...
What we are seeing is an errosion of American interests across the board by our politicians and the State Department... The FAM is Department of State Regulatory policiy, not law... and much of that policy ,may be contrary to statutory law... Hillary Clinton pototypes being in charge of writing FAM... policy.
In the late 60's and early 70's the US still held territorial jurisdiction over much of its instalations in places like Germany... it was policy to retain territorial jurisdiction over US instalations on foreign soil during the time of McCain's birth. One can not apply current polity to law... in fact, we must read the law and then cautiously apply policy as it maybe contrary to the law... more deep state shit.
House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.
Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.
Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.
Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.
In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.
Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,
Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.
Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.
Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.
The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.
In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.
© 2019 Created by Steve - Ning Creator.
Powered by