The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866
The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment
[Emphasis in bold and underlined: mine]
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.
Part 4 (column 2), page 2890
Mr Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." ...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895
Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, 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...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:
Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893
Mr. 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 "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
Again, it is clear that the intent of the 14th amendment, section 1's "subject to the jurisdiction" meant singular citizenship and excludes multi-nationals at birth.
In regard to Obama, born with a United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship at birth, regardless of where in the world he was born, it is obvious and mandatory that he does NOT qualify to having been subject completely and solely to the jurisdiction of the United States only at birth. This is in matter of fact, de jure, stipulated to.
Upon any travels from the time of his birth to age 23, whether we are discussing to Indonesia, England, Pakistan, India, Kenya, or anywhere else in the world outside of US Sovereignty, was Barack Hussein Obama II exclusively a United States Citizen subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States as its exclusive citizen if he got in trouble? Absolutely NOT.
From birth to age 21,
1) Barack Obama II had the option of seeking aid as a Citizen of Great Britain as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies designation
2) Barack Obama II had the option of seeking aid as a Citizen of Kenya
Further, from circa age 7 to circa age 35 (or 36 if he was born on January 04, 1961) when he took the oath of office as an Illinois State Senator on January 8, 1997, Obama as a naturalized citizen of Indonesia ca. August 1968, could have also sought refuge as a citizen of Indonesia.
The particulars of seeking refuge could also have applied at a British or Kenyan or Indonesian embassy on US Soil, such as in the Washington DC area, if he had so chosen, as he had in his possession at least a United Kingdom and Colonies passport and an Indonesian passport to at least the age of 23.
And as Senator Trumbull of Illinois said, and Senator Howard concurred to:
What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Therefore, it is a statement of legal fact, that the White House and the Office of the Presidency of the United States is occupied by a completely unconstitutional FRAUD, and the Corporate Media and both major Political Parties are covering up for this arch-robber, who needs to be exposed and chastised in a US Court of Law, with his entire illegal Presidency reversed under
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html
states that “a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and “in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land,the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;and not the laws of the United States generally,but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution,have that rank.”
And again, if I may:
Please go to attorney Orly Taitz's website
and please make a
contribution to Orly's legal efforts against Obama as soon as you can,
even if only 10 or 25 or 50 dollars (more if you are able).
Please help spearhead that effort which
will help us procure or retain Liberty through the Courts by Orly,
a "naturalized citizen" who was required to learn and respect the US Constitution in order to become one of us, and is actually doing what the ignorant, foolish, lazy, or corrupt of those who dare call themselves Constitutional Attorneys refuse to do...and defend the US Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" clause by bringing court action against and suing its VIOLATOR -in - Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II.
a "naturalized citizen" who was required to learn and respect the US Constitution in order to become one of us, and is actually doing what the ignorant, foolish, lazy, or corrupt of those who dare call themselves Constitutional Attorneys refuse to do...and defend the US Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" clause by bringing court action against and suing its VIOLATOR -in - Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Thank you very kindly.
No comments:
Post a Comment