Carl Gallups Really Believes Mike Zullo is a "Law Enforcement Officer?"

(RC: This is a guest post written by Brian Reilly. Mr. Reilly was a member of the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party and was the person who convinced Sheriff Joe Arpaio to do an investigation into President Obama’s long form birth certificate in 2011. Mr. Reilly then was asked to join the Cold Case Posse and worked on the investigation along side Posse lead Mike Zullo.

Mr. Reilly has called Reality Check Radio several times to voice his opinion that the investigation led by Mike Zullo was and continues to be nothing more than a sham. Mr. Reilly expressed that opinion most recently on my show this past Wednesday evening. )

OPINION: BY BRIAN REILLY

There seems to be some confusion on the part of some, whether Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse, non-profit corporation is a ” sworn law enforcement officer” in Arizona.  Let’s see if we can find the truth.

QUESTIONS:

To Director Lyle Mann, Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training (AZPOST) regarding Posse member Michael P. Zullo.
1.) Was Michael P. Zullo,  AZ POST certified as  a law enforcement officer, anytime in the year 2012?
2.) Is Michael P. Zullo currently, AZ POST certified as a law enforcement officer?

(Arizona Amended Code, R13-4-103: Certification of Peace Officers Mandatory.

(Arizona Revised Statutes, 1-215-27:  “Peace Officers means sheriffs of counties, constables, marshals, policemen of cities and towns, commissioned personnel of the department of public safety, personnel who are employed by the state department of corrections and the department of juvenile corrections and who have received a certificate from the Arizona peace officers standards and training board,…..”     (volunteer Posse members are not included in the statute.)

ANSWERS:

From: Lyle Mann <lylem@azpost.gov>To: Brian Reilly reillyfam@REDACTED
Subject: RE: Is this person an AZ POST certified law enforcement officer?
“No to both questions.”

Sharon Rondeau quotes Carl Gallups, in her recent article in the Post & E-mail about the 9/23/14 Peter Boyles Show,  as saying,  “Zullo spends the first two or three pages [of his Alabama Supreme Court affidavit]  identifying his law enforcement powers and authorities.” Gallups asked Sheriff Arpaio: “Is he [Zullo] really a bona fide law enforcement officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office?”  Arpaio is reported to have said “Yes.”  In the Alabama Supreme Court, Michael Zullo affidavit,  in the third sentence,  of the first paragraph, on the first page, Zullo clearly states: “I am a former sworn law enforcement office (sic)/criminal investigator…..”  This affidavit is posted on Carl Gallups site at:  www.carlgallups.com/zullo-affidavit.doc

It is very clear that even Michael Zullo acknowledges that he is a “former sworn law enforcement office (sic).   Zullo’s statement is consistent with AZ POST Director Lyle Mann’s reply to my questions as to whether Michael P. Zullo is currently, or,  in 2012, an AZ POST certified law enforcement officer.  Director Mann’s answer is,  “No to both questions.”

Hopefully, Carl Gallups will give this article some thought and reconsider his position.

Regards,

Brian Reilly

This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Birther Radio, Birthers, Cold Case Posse, Mike Zullo and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Carl Gallups Really Believes Mike Zullo is a "Law Enforcement Officer?"

  1. gsgs says:

    I think he was a law enforcement officer many years ago in New Jersey or such

  2. jtmunkus says:

    From birther to debunker.

    Good Obot.

  3. June bug says:

    I think Carl believes his impression is confirmed by these statements from Zullo’s affidavit:

    “Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County has the authority to request assistance from a volunteer posse to assist the Sheriff in the execution of his duties, working under law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff.
    Upon activation by the Maricopa County Sheriff, certified Posse members are empowered to act as if the Sheriff himself were present when called upon to do so. Posse members of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.
    Under that activation Sheriff Arpaio granted fully law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to conduct this investigation and to report back to the Sheriff our findings for his ultimate dispensation.”

    Beyond letting him believe what he wants to believe, the wording itself is sufficiently mealy-mouthed and oblique to appeal to Carl

  4. truth seeker says:

    If Carl Gallups would read Zullo’s affidavit where Zullo states he is a “former” law enforcement officer, you would think Gallups would understand Zullo was speaking in the past tense, and Zullo is not presently a certified Arizona Peace Officer. But, Zullo is a volunteer posse member under the authority of Sheriff Joe. Big difference.

  5. All this distraction to obscure the pertinent issue regarding the “0”;, i.e.;

    “Is the “0” a Constitutionally legally sworn POTUS if he is not now or never was a (U.S.) natural born Citizen at the time of his birth and as contemplated and intended by the Framers of the COTUS by the usage of the term of words within the exclusionary language of the provision at A2S1C5….????”

  6. gsgs weote:

    I think he was a law enforcement officer many years ago in New Jersey or such

    Correct, he was on the police force in the small borough of Demerest, NJ for five years. Someone researched and found out the entire force consisted of 12 officers including school crossing guards. Zullo even tried to inflate that experience into something it was not. I documented Zullo’s propensity to pad his resume in this article:

    CCP Chief Deputy Clown Zullo Engages in Hilarious Resume Padding

    How have you been gsgs? Good to see you back.

  7. Billy Rawle says:

    @Steven Lee Craig

    A number of courts have answered your question and all have said he is natural born citizen.

    Your welcome.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Your juvenile interpretation OF “SETTLED LAW” fits well with the interpretations of Foreign Law that you must rely on in order to arrive at your PREFERRED DEFINITION, which the 10th Circuit says you, we, are NOT entitled to…

      Show me the SCOTUS OPINION that states ANY given person is a U.S. natural born Citizen in conformity with its usage and intent of A2S1C5 and THEN we can discuss “settled law”.

  8. Jim says:

    slcraigbc says: “”Show me the SCOTUS OPINION ….

    Kim Wong Ark v US

    • slcraignbc says:

      Show me WHERE in the 14th Amendment that the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen, are mentioned ANYWHERE in it AND Show me WHERE in the WKA case that the Article II usage of the term of words is discussed and or contemplated in the relation to POTUS eligibility and National Security….

      You can not because they do not……….therefore it appears that you accept that a Constitutional Clause can be “INCIDENTALLY” Amended by “INCIDENTAL DICTA” of a SCOTUS Opinion that used Foreign Law on the subject of Feudal Subjection to determine the nature of U.S. Citizenship in general to the point of rendering a Constitutional Executive Clause provision to be WITHOUT EFFECT insofar as its EXCLUSIONARY purpose is concerned.

      Go read Blackstone and show me where an English Court is allowed to annul a Black Letter Sovereign and or Parliamentary Law with “INCIDENTAL DICTA” based on Foreign Law.

    • slcraignbc says:

      ALSO,

      …. you need to show me where the 14th and or the WKA case dicta annulled the “ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship naturalization) ” which provides for the perpetuation of U.S. Citizenship by both AFFIRMED and TACIT CONSENT.

      Bottom line, you need to accept the fact that you are accepting a rational based on deception and that has no basis in Constitutional Law.

      The Declaratory born Citizen provision of the 14th Amendment IS, by definition, a COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION provision and to deny that FACT is to say that those persons who it was specifically aimed at did not become U.S. Citizens upon its Ratification.

      Were the STATELESS Emancipated, manumitted blacks MADE U.S. Citizens by the Ratification of the 14th or not ….. ???

  9. Yeah, I was gonna say that Jim but you know now Mr. Craig is gonna tell us that SCOTUS didn’t rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen but instead he was a “14th Amendment something, something citizen”. He will of course ignore that the court said there were two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized and that WKA, by existing law, could not be the latter. Yeah, he is gonna ignore that part.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Yes, and a “person” that relies on the 14th Amendment declaratory born Citizen provision is a “policy considered as” U.S. Citizen, or as I like to characterize it, a “Judicially KID-NAPPED alien foreign national”, given that the ONLY persons who gain U.S. Citizenship from the 14th Amendment are persons born to “parents who are both alien foreign nationals”.

      Taking the “0”s public persona bio at face value the “0” was born a U.S. Citizen by virtue of his mommy, Lil’ Stanley Annie and ALSO subject to the British Colonial Nationality Laws by virtue of his Big Daddy “0” status as a British Colonial Kenyan subject/citizen as per the 1948 British Nationality Statutes. That is a parenthetical form of “citizenship” known as “Dual-Citizenship”, and in the “0”s case, that was his parenthetical form of “citizenship” at birth.

      The ONLY persons who were / are eligible for U.S. Citizenship at birth by the 14th Amendments “collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision” are persons who would otherwise be born into a STATELESS condition, insofar as having a “national character” is concerned.

    • slcraignbc says:

      P.S. Reality Check;

      I would prefer you ask me a question than for you to suggest to others what I may or may not say on any given point of law or interest.

  10. Jim says:

    slcraignbc says: “Were the Stateles….(further bigotted statements)”

    Answer: No. Look it up in the Constitution.

    • slcraignbc says:

      In the COTUS the ‘enslaved race” are held as personal property and were counted as 2/3rds for the purpose of apportionment and the Scott v Sandford Opinion made it PLAIN that a Constitutional Amendment would be required in order for the enslaved black race to be held as being eligible for U.S.Citizenship.

      The Emancipation Proclamation did not suffice, the 1866 Civil Rights Act did not suffice, the 13th Amendment did not suffice…….it was not until the 14th’s “collective naturalization” of the OTHERWISE STATELESS emancipated & manumitted blacks that ANY black person was a U.S. Citizen, notwithstanding the fact that some States naturalized some as STATE CITIZENS. (See Scott v Sandford)

  11. slcraignbc write

    I would prefer you ask me a question than for you to suggest to others what I may or may not say on any given point of law or interest.

    Ok, here is a question for you. In the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark did the court rule that there are two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized and in fact cite the Minor v Happersett decision in support of that conclusion?

    Scott v Sandford? Really? I have never seen anyone cite the Dred Scott decision other than Birthers. It was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment last time I looked.

    BTW: knock off referring to the President of the United States Barack Obama and his family by using childish, pejorative terms. It is disrespectful of the man and the office and will not be tolerated. I will delete any such references in future comments.

    • slcraignbc says:

      OK, I’ll answer away, but it will require some intellectual honesty, critical thinking and deductive reasoning on your part to follow the FACTS of U.S. Citizenship under the COTUS.

      1st, yes the WKA case does say there is only two ways to become a U.S. Citizen, by birth or naturalization. What Justice penumbra zone Gray failed to do is to ESTABLISH how the 1st U.S. Citizen’s were MADE U.S. Citizen’s and then to acknowledge that “Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children U.S. Citizens at birth, or otherwise, (see 1790 to 1802 Naturalization Acts)

      Justice penumbra zone Gray also failed to acknowledge that there was NO “Jus Soli” and or “Declaratory born Citizen” provision prior to the 14th so failing to cite the U.S. Law that provided for the U.S. Citizenship for the children of U.S. Citizen parents prior to the 14th creates an overwhelming error of reasoning within the entire Opinion. (And it was NOT English foreign law or dicta)

      As for respect for the Office of POTUS, I have a great deal, but I have zero for an “0” that would crawl through a legal-loop-hole of ambiguity and set foot in that Office knowing that no U.S. Patriot Statesman would allow the shadow of AMBIGUITY to hang over the Office while he’s in it.

  12. President Obama hasn’t allowed any shadow of ambiguity to hang over the White House. It is only in the minds of wrong minded amateurs who do not understand the law like you. You have your opinion and can vote or challenge in the courts. I assume you voted. You also challenged in court and failed. Get over it.

    So you disagree with the Wong Kim Ark decision? It has been settled law since 1898. And all your hand wringing over the 14th Amendment? It is wasted because Gray reasoned that WKA was a natural born citizen with out it. It is because he found the term “NBC” in the Constitution was defined in English common law and was derived from natural born subject. Suck on it.

    • slcraignbc says:

      It IS NOT a “settled law” and the “anchor baby” POLICY CITIZENSHIP is acknowledged as being a tenuous grant at best.

      _Riddle me this: Isn’t t true that any and all “anchor baby Citizens” whose parents were from Mexico ALSO still Mexican Nationals making each of those anchor babies “Dual-National / Citizens….???

      If you are saying that a SO-CALLED Constitutional “scholar” was and is UNAWARE of the CONTROVERSY on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen as used for CAUSE within A2S1C5 of the COTUS then I would be left with even LESS regard than I hold now. After all there were 4 or five Thesis written in the years running up to the “0”s launching along with 5 or more proposed Acts and or Amendments on the subject.

      But the controversy was successfully deflected by the SR511 re: Jaun McLame during the election cycle.

      You choose to denigrate my OPINION while finding it IMPOSSIBLE to defend the OPINION of your preference.

      Well, I choose NOT to “suck i”t as you seem so well engaged in THAT activity.

  13. Dual citizenship in no way changes the quality or character of ones US Citizenship. It is a nonstarter in the Constitution or the law. It neither enhances nor detracts from ones US citizenship. In fact many US citizens may not even know they hold dual citizenship and several US presidents have held dual citizenship including some of the most revered like Jefferson.

    SR 511 was passed because s few scholars have over the years questioned the eligibility of persons born on foreign soil to citizen parents. (That may have been the case for John McCain). It was hardly debated and was in fact done as a favor to one of the Senate’s own. It had nothing to do with Senator Obama of course. His eligibility was not in question by any legal scholar for he was born on US soil. The two citizen parent nonsense theory was invented by Leo Donofrio long after candidate Obama was the nominee.

  14. America says:

    The facts are that you are a full of CRAP mon ami… non pas mon amis… at all or ever.
    You’re still attempting to be a big wheel…however you are a GROSS FOOL without any basice commons sense to do any kind of analysis on any matter whatsoever.
    Who pays you to be an asshole ? Answer the question please.
    DUAL citizens at the founding of America… how IGNORANT can an ASSHOLE such as you be ?

    Of course, on the day of forming a US government most people had dual citizenship JERKO. That’s the whole argument… isn’t it ?

    You ought to prend guarde de votre malaise… monsieur.. GET LOST you are not an AMERICAN because you cannot believe that a thing that… walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck, flys like a duck turns out to be in your eyes an alligator… YOU ASSHOLE.

    [I let this one through because it was so funny. Of course most of the founding fathers were born British subjects and became traitors from the Crown’s point of view. Others like Jefferson and Madison also had French citizenship bestowed upon them, which they gratefully accepted.
    RC]

    • slcraignbc says:

      Boy, you turned into a raving prick haven’t you….

      It “could” be taken that the following expression served as an Oath preceding the “collective naturalization EFFECT” that occurred coincidental with the Ratification of the COTUS;

      ” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….”

      Point is, the Founding Generation and “loosed the bonds that bound them” to England and RENOUNCED ALL Foreign Sovereigns, Princes, Potentates, et al.

      SO, NO, moron, there were NO U.S. DUAL-Citizens prior to the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

      If a man, / husband / father was an Alien then so to were their wives and children and when a man was a U.S. Citizen, then so too were their wives and children.

      Learn the Laws of the U.S. and respect and obey them, not the Black-Robed Opinions emanating from FOREIGN LAW.

  15. Northland10 says:

    The Emancipation Proclamation did not suffice, the 1866 Civil Rights Act did not suffice, the 13th Amendment did not suffice…….it was not until the 14th’s “collective naturalization” of the OTHERWISE STATELESS emancipated & manumitted blacks that ANY black person was a U.S. Citizen, notwithstanding the fact that some States naturalized some as STATE CITIZENS. (See Scott v Sandford)

    Jefferson Long, former slave and Congressman 1871
    Benjamin Turner, former slave and Congressman 1871
    Josiah Thomas Walls, former slave and Congressman 1871
    Jeremiah Haralson, former slave and Congressman March 1875
    John Adams Hyman, former slave and Congressman March 1875

    The 14th Amendment was not adopted until July 1868. If the amendment was a “collective naturalization” or whatever you call it, they would not have been citizens for the requisite 7 years for the office of Representative (the Haralson and Hyman being a couple of months short). If the 14th naturalized, then they could not have served, yet they did.

    They served because the 14th amendment does not create or naturalize new citizens but instead, ” the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well, you remain obtuse and unwilling to do ANY critical thinking or deductive reasoning, which is REQUIRED when interpreting Statutory Laws.

      That the “COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION” was applied in an “retroactive manner” is self-evidet, given that those that were affected were already born.

      Applied in a similar manner that the Ratification of the COTUS “collectively naturalized” those who were then a Citizen of any of the States, where in some instances the effect was dated to 1776, the Birth-date of U.S. Independence. But note that the Founding Generation DID NOT consider themselves as “natural born U.S. Citizens” as evidenced by the NEED for the Grandfather Clause.

      “ …. ” the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)….”
      You do understand that you are quoting “interpretations” of the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality as expressed by Lord Coke and Sir Blackstone, neither of which ever compared, consulted or construed the ACTUAL U.S. Laws on U.S. Citizenship made under the enumerated power of the U.S. Congress at A1S8C4; “The Congress shall have power … To establish a uniform rule of (U.S. Citizenship; implicit) naturalization, ….. throughout the United States;”

      The FACT that Justice Penumbra zone Gray did not once consult the COTUS or ITS laws on the subject of U.S. Citizenship puts to lies all the authority that you would have it to possess.

      “ … From the feudal system, sprung the law of allegiance; which pursuing the nature of its origin, rests on lands; for, when lands were all held of the Crown, then the oath of allegiance became appropriate: It was the tenure of the tenant, or vassal. Blac. Com. 366.
      The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140.
      Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance.
      The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry.
      Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance.
      When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms.
      But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.
      Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.
      Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.
      Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.
      Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
      Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
      Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.
      Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
      Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.
      Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
      Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.
      With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. “

      Talbot v Janson 3 US 133 On the 22nd of August, 1795 Justice Rutledge

  16. Northland10 says:

    Because I am channeling my inner Ballantine:

    “The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied,it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)

    • slcraignbc says:

      So, in your natural world the COTUS has no authority…..?????

      “… We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…..”

      ” … to ourselves and our posterity …” which 1st implies their progeny and 2nd, by virtue of A1S8C4, must include those “aliens” who would be added by naturalization process.

      The Indigenous Indians were NOT Citizens, those held in slavery were NOT Citizens and NO PERSON who were not already a State Citizen were NOT U.S. Citizens upon the Ratification of the COTUS.

      Thereafter, ONLY those persons who complied with the Acts written under the authority of A1S8C4 were made U.S. Citizens, regardless of where they were born, noting that once a MAN was made a U.S. Citizen, then thereafter so too were his wife and children.

      For the simple minded simply consider that it IS U.S. Citizenship that begets U.S. Citizenship naturally, once acquired, under the “uniform Rule” of U.S. Citizenship naturalization..

  17. Northland10 says:

    Boy, you turned into a raving prick haven’t you

    This statement is not really helpful to your argument. That said, I’m willing to help. Would you understand better if I had more words in all caps?

    • slcraignbc says:

      YA, all caps have there place when other editing tools are not handy………

      [Wordpress allows commenters to use most common html formatting codes such as bold and italics. Other folks seem to be able to use them. RC]

      ….. what is notable is that you and others prefer to argue on the elements and judicial interpretations of “foreign law” but will not acknowledge the SOVEREIGNTY of the COTUS insofar as ANY FORM of U.S. Citizenship is concerned.

      [ad hominem attacks deleted. Please read the blog comment guidelines. I restored what was deleted since it is being discussed. RC]
      So, ya’ll, ……….. Reality Sucks, Fo-American, Nutland 1.0, along with most all other 0’bot 0’pologists, the “0” knows he is a usurper and in the office unconstitutionally ……. and I know that he does not care because he knows he has enough useful-idiots, true-believers and card-carrying Socialist-Communist-jihadists-Democrat’s to distract, obfuscate the issue as long has the SCOTUS continues to AVOID the Question…..

  18. Jim Youngblood says:

    WKA was not a NBC according to SCOTUS. SCOTUS did rule that WKA was Citizen at Birth and in their great wisdom said that Citizen at Birth is as much in rights to that of an NBC. In essense, A Citizen at Birth is Equavalient to a NBC BUT IS NOT EQUAL or the SAME as an NBC. Here is the best analogy I come up with. WKA looked like an NBC, he sounded like an NBC, he felt like an NBC and he tasted like an NBC however WKA’s DNA was different from that of an NBC. (meaning he wasn’t born to citizen parents.) The court ruled that it is senses that matter and the court is not going to look at the DNA. In other words Citizen at birth and NBC both derive themselves from the same operating principle – birth. In their great wisdom they choose to grant WKA his freedom by declaring equailvalent in rights to that of an NBC.

    • slcraignbc says:

      A2S1C5 in it’s original text REQUIRES a DISTINCTION between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” ( of the United States implicit), and to say otherwise is to say that the exclusionary wording of the Clause has “no effect”.

      To say that ANY provision of the COTUS has “no effect” is INADMISSIBLE as a legal argument according to Marbury v Madison.

      Taking the Statutory Construction of the Constitution in whole, and the Statutory Construction of the subject Clause specifically, it can be said that the Clause, ergo the COTUS, REQUIRES a distinction between a (U.S.) Citizen and a (U.S.) natural born Citizen, EVEN if the ONLY distinction is the singular circumstance of “ELIGIBILITY”.

      However, when the Acts of the Congress under the enumerated power granted under A1S8C4 we find that the specific CIRCUMSTANCES of parentage, place and Citizenship status are identifiable and distinguishable insofar as ANY AND ALL forms of U.S. Citizenship is concerned.

  19. *Yawn* Craig do you ever get tired of being a loud mouthed nobody who is always wrong? I find it funny how you birthers claim to be the sole authority when it came to the meaning of the Presidential eligibility clause in the constitution. The problem is no one who matters actually believes as you guys do. You’ve lost on all counts. You’ve lost in court, you’ve lost in congress, you’ve lost in the court of public opinion. You guys are relegated to the trash bin of history with the sovcit movement and the 9/11 truthers. The 14th Amendment isn’t statutory law. Your whole bringing up of Anchor babies has no relevance to Obama since he wasn’t what one would claim to be an anchor baby. Give it up already. 6 years and you’ve gotten nowhere.

    • slcraignbc says:

      To Porky-Moron……

      Truth is eternal, Facts are the products of Truth………Truth sustains its-self and does not tire or weaken with the passing of time…..

      ……..I am not the authority…..it IS the COTUS and the laws made in PURSUANCE thereof that are the authorities on the “Eligibility Clause” and it is there that the TRUTH on the subject resides……..

      So, no…I am not tired………but thanks for the concern……….

  20. gorefan says:

    @slcraignbc

    “To say that ANY provision of the COTUS has “no effect” is INADMISSIBLE”
    “the COTUS, REQUIRES a distinction between a (U.S.) Citizen and a (U.S.) natural born Citizen”

    According to the COTUS:

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    And

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    So according to your interpretation of the COTUS natural born Citizens can not be members of Congress.

    Or is it that the class “Citizen of the United States” includes natural born Citizens?

  21. gorefan says:

    @Jim Youngblood

    “In essense [sic], A Citizen at Birth is Equavalient [sic] to a NBC BUT IS NOT EQUAL or the SAME as an NBC.”

    Sorry to tell you this Jim but Chief Justice Fuller disagrees with you. According to his dissenting opinion the majority opinion made Wong Kim Ark eligible to be President. And the appellants in the case (the U.S. Government) said the same thing. That was their understanding of Justice Gray’s ruling.

  22. gorefan says:

    “So according to you’re interpretation of the COTUS ”

    should read

    “So according to your interpretation of the COTUS”

    [Fixed. RC]

  23. slcraignbc says:

    Gorefan …. (can’t think of how to make that sound any more ridiculous)

    There are white Citizens, Black Citizens, Red Citizens, Brown Citizens, Yellow Citizens, Mixed Race Citizens, Dual Citizens, naturalized Citizens, Policy(14th Amendment) Citizens and natural born Citizens………….I imagine that there are any number of other HYPHENATIONS that could be attached for various causes but the illustration should make it plain that the condition of “Citizen” can be overlaid with any number of identifying HYPHENATIONS, ………BUT the COTUS says that.”NO person EXCEPT ………SHALL be….” …… a SPECIFIC term of words HYPHENATION that specifies a certain set of circumstances at the birth of the person………… NOT according to me, ….according to TRUTH and intellectual honesty ………

    • slcraignbc says:

      Yes, that is a child born within the limits of the U.S. of parents who are BOTH alien foreign nationals and who would NOT be born STATELESS but are never the less considered by POLICY to be U.S. Citizens.

      It turns on the “interpretation” of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” ACTUALLY means.

      To say that the “national character” of a child born to two (2) alien foreign national parents is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the COTUS is to say that the Constitution is authorized to KIDNAP the children of alien foreign nationals with or without their consent.

  24. Jim says:

    Now this is getting even dumber…how are the children being kidnapped?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Are you under the impression that the Nations / Countries that the parents are Nationals / Citizens / subjects / tribesmen of have no interest in the children of those Nationals / Citizens / subjects / tribesmen….??

      Does the U.S. require “CONSENT”, whether AFFIRMATIVE, or in the case of children of existing U.S. Citizens, TACIT CONSENT in order to have become a U.S. Citizen in a bona fide manner consistent with the Acts of Congress.

      Are the alien foreign national parents required to sign a “Notice of Renunciation” on behalf of the child that renounces any right to the National Character that their parents hold….???

      But, I imagine any such considerations are all Greek to you having no idea where “Citizens” come from in the 1st instant.,

  25. Northland10 says:

    It turns on the “interpretation” of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” ACTUALLY means.

    Yick Wo v. Hopkins118 U.S. 356 (1886)

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

    “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.”

    These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html

    • slcraignbc says:

      Check the Laws regarding illegal entry into the U.S. and you will find that those who are charged are RESTRICTED to the access of Federal Courts for the SINGULAR purpose of APPEALING DEPORTATION.

      The Preamble to the COTUS EXPRESSLY says “WE the People of the United States………” and THOSE “WE the people…” were those persons who were, at the time of the Ratification of the COTUS, EXISTING State Citizens, and NO OTHERS.

      The Preamble ALSO contemplated the POSTERITY of “Citizens”, by BIRTH and OTHERWISE, by virtue of 1st including those Citizens “progeny” and 2nd those Citizens to be ADDED by virtue of A1S8C4.

      When correctly construing the extents and the limits of the words and effects of the 1790 and 1795 Act you are left with the FACT that there are only two (2) ways to acquire U.S. Citizenship; 1st, by birth to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents, ( up to 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act), thereafter to at-least one (1) Citizen parent making a Dual Citizen child………..and 2nd, by the “Naturalization process as provided for “alien foreign nationals” and their children.

      The CIRCUMSTANCE that exists where “alien foreign nationals” are NOT being arrested for illegal entry into the U.S. and “PROTESTING and exercising other “rights” is a POLICY DECISION and NOT authorized under any existing Act of the Congress,

    • slcraignbc says:

      P.S.

      The Congress has the MANDATED PLENARY POWER over the “making of Citizens” aka, “NATURALIZATION”, (A1S8C$), as well as the PLENARY POWER over IMMIGRATION post 1808, (A1S9C1).

  26. Yes Truth is eternal which is why it’s never on your side. Thus far you’ve brought no facts which is why you can’t actually address what is said to you. The constitution doesn’t back up your claims kiddo.

    Of course you guys are the definition of insanity. 6 years of this nonsense and you’re no closer now than where you were the first time you spouted this nonsense. Poor Craig

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well Porky, ..

      The FACT that you can not recognize a FACT when you are presented with one does NOT change the FACTS of the FACTS presented,…..and that’s a FACT.

  27. Sorry Craig there is no such thing as a non-naturalized non-natural born citizen which is what you’re trying to claim with your third type of citizen. Those born here have no need to be naturalized.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well, Porky – Moron…

      You are living up to my estimation of you by making up things I never said and is so out of context that I have no idea where you came up with such a conclusion from anything that I’ve posted…….

      …read….re-read….restate you protest …. and try adding context….

  28. Where in the constitution is this claim of policy citizens where one could neither be natural born nor naturalized.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Again……….the 14th Amendment’s Collective naturalization declaratory born Citizen provision was written to cure the condition of STATELESSNESS of the emancipated and manumitted blacks who had no Constitutional access to U.S. Citizenship prior to that provision.(see Scott v Sandford)

      The blacks were STATELESS because they had NO generational ties to their homeland for the most part. Many did return to the African Continent, some migrated to the Caribbean Islands and So. America. Those that remained had NO NATIONAL CHARACTER insofar as the COTUS was concerned. That condition required a Constitutional Amendment given that a Congressional Act would have been subject to modifications and or repeal by subsequent Congresses.

      It IS “settled law” that race, gender and or national origin” can NOT be a bar to acquiring U.S. Citizenship, HOWEVER, naturalization and immigration is under the authority of the Congress and the CURRENT Congressional Acts CRIMINALIZES ILLEGAL ENTRY into the U.S..

      It is inconsistent to say that a persons / parents who are subject to REMOVAL and DEPORTATION can also be the parents of a U.S. natural born Citizen as contemplated by the Framers and Founders of the COTUS as the term of words were used in the explicitly EXCLUSIONARY language of the provision at A2S1C5.

      Bizzarro World Liberal Orwellian thinking ……

  29. It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States – James Madison

    What part don’t you get Craig? In this country the main criterion for allegiance is Place of birth not parentage. But hell what would James Madison know being the writer of the constitution. Certainly Craig thinks he knows better.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Porky Moron at it again……….

      “ … From the feudal system, sprung the law of allegiance; which pursuing the nature of its origin, rests on lands; for, when lands were all held of the Crown, then the oath of allegiance became appropriate: It was the tenure of the tenant, or vassal. Blac. Com. 366.

      The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140.

      Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance.
      The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry.

      Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance.

      When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms.

      But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.

      Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.

      Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.

      Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.

      Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.

      Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.

      Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.

      Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.

      Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.

      Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.

      Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.

      With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. “

      Talbot v Janson 3 US 133 On the 22nd of August, 1795 Justice Rutledge

  30. You’re assuming that in most countries that citizenship is automatic through birth to citizen parents. Many countries have a process including registration of the child with the country. So when a parent fails to register the child do you then claim the child cannot be a US citizen using funky craig logic?

    • slcraignbc says:

      I am not an EXPERT on OTHER COUNTRIES “Citizenship Laws”, even though I have read through many of them, I.E., the British Nationality Laws of Queen Anne of 1720, and the English Parliament British Nationality Act of 1948 and 1972, the CURRENT Mexican Nationality and Citizenship Act, (All persons born to Mexican Nationals in Mexico are born Mexican Nationals BUT NOT NECESSARILY CITIZENS), along with the Australian Nationality Laws, Canadian Nationality Laws looking for the distinctions that exist between them and the British Nationality Laws, and also the Philippine citizenship Laws: which state quite simply;

      Filipino by birth

      Although Jus soli (right of soil), which is the legal principle that a person’s nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth (e.g. the territory of a given state), it is Jus sanguinis (right of blood) , which is the legal principle that, at birth, an individual acquires the nationality of his/her natural parent/s, that the Philippine adheres to .

      Filipino by naturalization which is the judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native-born citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former nationality and the fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new body politic (2Am.Jur.561,par.188).

      The U.S. Citizenship is based on CONSENT, either AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT, (as in 1st generation / naturalized Citizens) or TACIT CONSENT, (as in the child of an existing U.S. Citizen) ….(see the Acts of the U.S. Congress at 1790 et seq.

  31. Jim says:

    Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court Justice (retired): “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

    slcraignbc: “He’s not eligible because I say so.”

    I think the ex-supreme knows just a bit more than an internet loudmouth who misinterprets everything.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Place of birth ONLY makes the “0” a SUBJECT not a Citizen………….the Naturalization Acts determined that the lil’ “0” is a U.S. Citizen by virtue of his mommy lil’ Stanley Annie and a DUAL-Citizen by the acquisition of AVAILABLE benefit of British Colonial Kenyan Citizenship at birth from his Big Daddy “0”.

      A U.S. natural born Citizen is ONLY produced by two (2) U.S. Citizen parents whithin the limits of the U.S.

      The HYPHENATION is NOT without EFFECT and IS specific as to the circumstances.

      In the 1st five (5) years of this Nations existence a U.S. natural born Citizen was a child born to Two (2) U.S. Citizen parents ANYWHERE in the world. In January of 1795 the Congress repealed and replaced the 1790 Act repealing the “FOREIGN BORN” U.S. natural born Citizen provision and thereafter children born out of the limits of the U.S. are U.S. Citizens , (with a justifiable hyphenation of “foreign born”).

      Post the 1795 Act the only PLACE a U.S. natural born Citizen could be born was ‘within the limits” of the U.S. and the ONLY way to be BORN a U.S. Citizen was to be born of a married U.S. Citizen father.

      The LAW is BLACK-LETTER and I make NO EXCUSES for the IGNORANCE of the Federal Courts inability to READ and COMPREHEND the Laws of the Congress, ( even though the Courts up to and including Scott v Sandford appears to have gotten it correct for the most part.)

  32. Illegal entry into the US has no relationship to Barack Obama and thus no relevance. Incorrect reading of the 1790 and 1795 acts. Which expanded the meaning to those born of two citizens overseas and not restricted it to meaning one had to be born of two citizens.

    Again you shoot from the hip without having any idea of what you’re talking about.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Porky, Porky Porky……

      Any and ALL aspects of U.S. Citizenship and the related Laws are open to scrutiny when any given single aspect of U.S. Citizenship is in question.

      If what you are saying is indeed true then I could easily demand that you stop injecting any opinion that post dates January 1795 insofar as to who and where a U.S. natural born Citizen is born.

      That is unless you insist on discussing Dual-Citizenship which became a by-product of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

      The 14th Amendment DID NOT CREATE U.S. natural born Citizens as the COTUS REQUIRES to exist. Nor did the 14th in any way AMEND A2S1C5, not in words that say so nor in words that would require it, zero, zip, nada.

      For YOUR natural born subject citizen to exist under the 14th YOU require English Common Law interpretations by Lord Coke and Sir Blackstone as they interpret the 1720 Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality written so as to encourage Englishmen to go off to Foreign Lands and Empire Build by Colonization secure in the knowledge that their rights of inheritance will not be diminished.

      Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.

      Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.

      Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.

      Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.

      Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.

      Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.

      Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.

      With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. “

      Talbot v Janson 3 US 133 On the 22nd of August, 1795 Justice Rutledge

  33. I recognize facts Craig, your problem continues to be that you haven’t presented any. Again things aren’t considered facts because you claim they are. You’ve presented no facts again you can’t answer what is directed at you.

    • slcraignbc says:

      OK, PORKY,
      ………..lets see if we can agree on ANY FACTS….we’ll start post the collective naturalization effect of the Ratification of the COTUS on the existing State Citizens, and no others;…..

      ….. Did the 1790 Act address the birth of a (U.S.) natural born Citizen under specific circumstances or not….???

  34. How do you keep track of some of the things you say since they’re all over the fucking map. I’ve read what you’ve claimed and found it to be lacking any substance. How about you reply to what is said to you for once?

  35. And again Craig misses what is said to him. How exactly could the black congressmen be eligible to be congressmen if we used your interpretation of the law? You’re basically saying those men had no status no citizenship before the ratification of the 14th. But then you run smack into the requirement for a congressman to have 7 years citizenship before becoming a congressman. Take for instance Jefferson Long who was elected in 1870 and served in 1871 only 3 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment. Long himself was elected to fill the vacancy of Samuel Gove who was ineligible to serve. So using your supposed interpretation Long and a number of other African American congressman shouldn’t have been allowed to be congressman. The problem was that’s not how it was interpreted by any sound minded person.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Don’t be OBTUSE …. the collective naturalization of the manumitted blacks was retroactive to their birth by virtue of they having been born STATELESS.

      However, I will research that specific question to see if there were any notable or incidental debates .

      That is unless you have a list of them that you’re holding back…..???

  36. And where does Justice Rutledge take up your two citizen theory? You just once again copy and pasted something that lacks relevance to the conversation.

    • slcraignbc says:

      PORKY…….you offer no real objection other than you are too too lazy to think…….Rutledge in the Talbot v Janson case not ONLY rejected the English Common Law as having ANY relevance ti the U.S. Citizenship Laws he overturned the naturalization made by a State because the process and State Law that the State used to “naturalize” Talbot did not conform to the 1790 / 1795 Acts by the U.S. Congress.

      The EXPLICIT language of the 1795 Act explains it clearly…….

      ” … SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: –”

  37. slcraig wrote:

    Yes, that is a child born within the limits of the U.S. of parents who are BOTH alien foreign nationals and who would NOT be born STATELESS but are never the less considered by POLICY to be U.S. Citizens.

    It turns on the “interpretation” of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” ACTUALLY means.

    To say that the “national character” of a child born to two (2) alien foreign national parents is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the COTUS is to say that the Constitution is authorized to KIDNAP the children of alien foreign nationals with or without their consent.

    First “Policy Citizen” is a term you just made up. Policy implies that the State Department or Congress could change the “policy”. They cannot. That is what Executive Branch tried to do to Wong Kim Ark and the Supreme Court said no.

    Second, the granting of citizenship to the children of aliens born on US sole does not change jurisdiction but confers privileges to the child not available to the parents or other aliens. The child may always renounce that citizenship when he or she reaches the age of consent. Equating the granting of the citizenship with kidnapping is pure and utter nonsense.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Reality Check…

      Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point ……. however I take exception to the characterization of “pure and utter nonsense” given that a number of “anchor baby” proposed Acts have circulated through the Congress beginning in 1898 and every few years since.

      You see, there is a SEPARATION of POWERS concern at issue that TURNS on the interpretation of a term of words used within the collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision of the 14th Amendment, i.e., “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

      The “thereof” MUST include the COTUS in order for there to be any EFFECT of the Land, (place) and the COTUS gives plenary power of naturalization at A1S8C4 and immigration at A1S9C1, post 1808, to the CONGRESS. Therefore, all persons who are NOT already Citizens are SUBJECT to the Laws of the CONGRESS, unless they would otherwise be born STATELESS, in which case they would be subject to the 14th.

  38. @slcraignbc

    Stop the childish name calling or I will have to put you in moderation.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Hey…. take a look at what I HAVE BEEN CALLED and get back to me………I use my REAL NAME, and do not hide behind childish anonymity……as if you have ANY relation to “reality”…ummmphhh

      You’re just afaid an open minded individual with the abilities of critical thinking might stumble upon this obscure blog and be swayed by the FACTS that I present based on ACTUAL Law

      Other than relying on the manufactured AMBIGUITY of the term of words and the continuing EVADING and AVOIDING by the SCOTUS on the question why not try a little intellectual honesty and reconcile your preferred definition of circumstances with the national security concern that John Jay expressed and was accepted at the Constitutional Convention…..????

  39. Yes and you’re also not an expert on US law either as has been shown time and time again. I’ve studied US citizenship laws pretty closely and find your interpretations downright stupid.

    Once again what other countries say about their citizens has no bearing on US citizenship. Naturalization is based on consent. Natural citizenship is based on place of birth. But please keep trying.

  40. ah yes Craig once again claims that only he and the birthers got it right and all the federal courts obviously got it wrong. Seriously what would they know about American law considering the courts deal with it on a daily basis.

    Are you now claiming there’s a difference between Natural-Born citizens and Natural Born Citizens?

    No in the first five years it was one born on US soil or born to two citizen parents overseas. They added that part to allow those born overseas the right to american citizenship since it was not particularly clear.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Hey , Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran) ……..I’m a bit amazed and amused at once, but…I am curious……who were the parents of the child born “within the limits of the U.S.” ….. given that the children of an “alien” did NOT become U.S. Citizens until the “alien father” did…….so who were the parents of a U.S. natural born Citizen born within the limits of the U.S. between March 1790 and 1795 and then up to 1922…..?????

  41. You do know that citizenship right of women through marriage only changed during a 20 year period? The section of the cable act you refer to only repealed US law from 20 years earlier which stated that married women take the nationality of their husbands. It repealed section 3 and 4 of the expatriation act of 1907.

    The 14th amendment did not create a new class it only clarified what already was and reversed the decision made in Scot V Sanford.

    You keep quoting Rutledge but where did he take up your two citizen parent theory?

    • slcraignbc says:

      No cigar Poque.

      The 1907 Expatriation Act only “codified” for “National purposes” what already existed in a loosely uniform condition among the States.

      You see MARRIAGE was a STATE issue which is closely attached to matters of “Estates of Inheritance” laws which were expressly State matters under the 10th by the silence of the COTUS on the subjects.

      Women, prior to the 1921 Suffrage Act did NOT hold full Citizenship Rights, although the Minor V Case PROVED that GENDER along with Race was no bar to U.S. Citizenship acquisition. The 1922 Cable Act, AKA the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act not only separated their Citizenship from their husbands it ALSO REQUIRED an alien woman to naturalize in her own right separate from her husband, if any.

      It also established the conditions for DUAL-Citizenship of a child at birth, and as has been often suggested a dual citizen falls into the “No person” category of the exclusionary requirement of a U.S. natural born Citizen provision.

  42. Once again Craig you keep talking about facts yet you fail to actually bring any. Do you have any idea what the naturalization act is supposed to do or how it came about?

    The 1790 act clarified that Natural born citizens is extended to those born of citizen parents overseas.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue.

      If you “CONSTRUE” the text of A1S8C4 under the rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation a fair interpretation of the MANDATE to the Congress to exert PLENARY POWER of the subject of U.S. Citizenship by Instituting a U.S. Common Law on U.S. Citizenship throughout the United States. ( A1S8C4 ” … The Congress shall have power … To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, …… throughout the United States;..”

      To say that “naturalization” is NOT a NOUN before it becomes a VERB is to put the cart before the horse.

      Naturalization is a Political Concept just as a “Citizen” is a Political Concept.

      If you deny either of those propositions then you must also deny that the COTUS is a Political Document.

  43. Not being obtuse in the slightest. So now you’re saying that the 14th became retroactive and suddenly changed the requirements to be a congressman. Where in the act do you find that claim?

    You’ve already been given a list of black congressman from right after the ratification of the 14th amendment which under your theory would not have been eligible to be a congressman because using your illogic would not have been citizens for 7 years prior to being a congressman.

    Do you always just make up theories in your head that make no sense?

    Okay here’s another one. So how do you account for children born from rape where the attacker is unknown to the woman? You’re just going to say because you don’t know the father that the child isn’t a natural born citizen?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran)

      No , I apologize for that and will do some research on it…….I imagine the question came up at least once when a new member came before the House,…

      …. but it would seem a bit cynical to object to a black persons eligibility due to years as a U.S. Citizen after just fighting a war, passing an Emancipation Proclamation, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 13th Amendment reiteration of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, that FINALLY satisfied the needs of the COTUS as the Scott v Sandford case pointed out…..

      ……so I’m not sure any House member was as bold or obtuse as to rise voicing objection for the CAUSE of YEARS as U.S. Citizen being a disqualifying condition for the newly elected Black man……..

      ……….but I’ll research it instead of expressing CONJECTURE …

  44. You have not provided the full opinion from Rutledge and from what you’ve quoted you have not provided that he took up your two citizen parent theory. I’m not the one being lazy here you are in that you can’t clarify your crazy opinions.

    Do you even know what the case was about? Do you know how it came to be?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran)

      NOTHING I said or posted said that Rutledge addressed the U.S. natural born Cituzen question in ANY manner whatsoever…………other than HOLDING that the Congressional Naturalization Acts superseded any and all State naturalization provisions that did NOT conform to the Federal Acts………….along with the DICTA that totally eviscerates the notion that the “English common-laws” of feudal subjugation having any relation to the CONCEPT of U.S. Citizenship under a Representative Republic.as defined by the COTUS.

  45. Craig said: “The EXPLICIT language of the 1795 Act explains it clearly…….

    ” … SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: –”

    Again relevance? This has to do with naturalization and not being born on US soil. An alien is someone with foreign citizenship. Obama wouldn’t have been considered an alien so again your claim lacks relevance.

    • slcraignbc says:

      OK, since you read it without comprehending it I will TRY to walk you through it………….

      …when did the children present within the limits of the U.S. regardless of when and where they were born to an “alien” father become U.S. Citizens ALSO …?

      Answer is the children became U.S. Citizens CONCURRENTLY with their alien fathers completion of the naturalization process………

      …..and then add to the above that a child born abroad to a U.S. Citizen father is a U.S. Citizen at birth……..

      …. Then is not the “uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship” that ” Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise……?????

  46. Anchor baby acts? You mean people trying to make it so those you would consider to be “anchor babies” wouldn’t have citizenship at birth. Again citizenship at birth is what matters. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.

    And Craig now goes about capitalizing certain words so we’ll know to take him seriously even though we don’t.

    Which law school did you attend again Craig?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran)

      NO, well, maybe………………nevertheless it turns on the questions of BOTH the term of words, ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,,,” and also the question of the PLENARY POWER of the Congress on the subjects of naturalization and immigration…..

      Congress could easily end the confusion by enacting a statute that required an ENTRY VISA in order to be considered “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and all of the AMBIGUITY would go away on THAT issue………..oh wait, I think they have, in so many words, , but the Executive Branch has failed to enforce it for years and so established the condition of “POLICY CITIZENSHIP”…….

  47. Hey…. take a look at what I HAVE BEEN CALLED and get back to me………I use my REAL NAME, and do not hide behind childish anonymity……as if you have ANY relation to “reality”…ummmphhh

    I reread the entire thread and the only person doing name calling is you. No one is required to use their real name on this blog of any other blog for that matter. Is you real name “slcraignbc”?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Reality Check

      Then you need to reread the entire thread and look for these key words………OH wait… you went back and deleted all of the profanity aimed at me….. good for you…..

      ….I’ll refrain from from insulting and see if it goes both ways or not………..

      BTW, that’s Steven Lee Craig and I am a U.S. natural born Citizen, although the guv’mnt will only confirm that I am a “native-born U.S. Citizen” and refuses to say for the record what circumstances are required to be in conformity to the purpose and intent of the term of words usage at A2S1C5 of the COTUS.

  48. Lol what the hell have you been called here Craig? Your first few posts here were childish calling the President 0. Calling someone a “raving prick”, etc. You had a whole ad hominem attack you made deleted. Thus far the only one being rude here has been you. It seems to be common with your ilk.

    Wow cry us a river. You got made to look like a fool now you want to complain about internet handles on a blog? Could you act any more butt hurt?

    John Jay wasn’t a member of the constitutional convention. His letter didn’t reach the convention. His claim was regarding the commander in chief at a time when commander in chief and president were going to be two separate positions. Never in his letter did he claim Natural born citizenship meant two citizen parents.

    John Jay was worried about foreign influence from say a foreign prince not one born on US soil.

    There has been no “evading or avoiding” by scotus. And capitalizing random words aren’t going to make any of us take you seriously.

  49. If you bothered to read the passage you were referring to. Children becoming naturalized when their parents were referred to already born children. It has nothing to do with children born to alien parents who later naturalized. The meaning here was that the children were born on foreign soil. Residing within the limits is what the passage says. It does not refer to children born within the limits of the jurisdiction of the united states. You’re reading into this something you want it to say as opposed to what it actually says.

    Your interpretation is not what the act actually said. In fact it says nothing about children of aliens born on US soil.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran)

      See, that is why it is impossible to discuss the subject in a rational manner based on facts because you simply dismiss the facts and insert some extra-constitutional meaning to anything that does not fit your narrative.

      SHOW ME where the 1790 Act distinguishes WHERE the children of aliens were born within the text of the Act……

      There was NO “subject to the jurisdiction” CITIZENSHIP PRIOR to the 14th. The children of aliens, foreign or native born, were also still aliens until their alien father completed naturalization UNDER the circumstances provided for by the Act.

  50. You mean SL Craig just lied about him being namecalled here? Not surprised.

  51. Northland10 says:

    However, I will research that specific question to see if there were any notable or incidental debates .

    Then I would recommend reading Ballentine’s blog, especially the quotes from the debates on the civil rights act and the 14th Amendment.

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

    John Woodman also did a great deal of documentation.

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/

  52. You haven’t really read either act have you? Okay lets see this loosely based condition among the states which stripped women of their citizenship upon marriage of a foreign spouse despite them living in the US?

    It wasn’t there. The act changed the law in order to strip women of their citizenship because of the fear of incoming immigrants.

    The problem for you is that once again they were citizens even if they were not given the right to vote. The Cable Act revoked the law stripping them of citizenship.

    There is no such thing as a “no person” category in the United States. You are again making up terms to fit your crazy theories. Dual Citizens are not excluded from being natural born citizens. Spiro Agnew had dual greek and american citizenship and served as the VP. You can’t be VP unless you fit the requirements for President.

  53. *yawn* do you think if you use a bunch of random words that have no real meaning people will think you to seem intelligent? Cargo cult legal claims are still nonsense no matter how much you try to spin it Steven. Try actually responding to what I said instead of what the voices in your head though I said.

  54. Yes, I will apply the rules equally if someone else gets out of hand no matter what side of the spectrum they may reside. I generally do not censor, moderate or ban. (WordPress automatically puts the first post from a new email address into moderation to reduce spam.)

  55. So again what relevance does Rutledge have to the conversation? You do know that the Janson opinion was his only opinion he gave while on the court and ended up fading back into obscurity when he wasn’t confirmed by the senate?

    • slcraignbc says:

      If you do not like having to accept Talbot v then try The U.S. v Villatto and or Collet v Collet, both of which Held that the U.S. Acts of naturalization superseded and and all State naturalization provisions that did not conform to the Federal Acts.

      The Federal Acts establish CONSENT as the basis of U.S. Citizenship, affirmative and tacit, i.e., at birth or otherwise.

      But I’ve about caught up with the email flood of inane replies that are void of any real thoughts other than renunciation of Constitutional principles of the Rule of Law so I’m going to take a break before refreshing my email box …….

  56. So you’re saying they just ignored your view of the constitution 5 times in a row because they didn’t want to be embarrassed? Sounds like a complex reasoning posited by you when the simplest explanation is usually the most logical. Things weren’t how you actually believed they were.

    Lol all you’ve posited here is conjecture. Again what law school did you attend?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran)

      NO………I have never presented this “proposition of law” in any case………….all of the cases I did present simply asked that they acknowledge me, personally, as being a U.S. natural born Citizen based on the documented circumstances of my birth, (3 generations of birth certs were provided)..

      The best they could do was to affirm that I an a “native-born U.S. Citizen” and that they, the USCIS, could do no more and Eric Holder’s gang said I did not have any right to ask under the laws in his jurisdiction because I was not subject to deportation.

      I am working on various “petitions” that contain this “proposition of law” but unfortunately this issue must take 2nd seat to some more immediate concerns.

  57. No I read it just realized going in that it was just your usual unconscious stream of word salad. Again you’re confused on the meaning of what is written in the act. The act refers to children residing within the US not those who were born there. Just as the alien who came to our shores with their kids would be able to naturalize such kids at the time they naturalized. This is what the act is referring to and thus has no relevance to Obama.

    Again this act has nothing to do with those born in the US thus has no relevance. Are you really this clueless?

  58. Then you need to reread the entire thread and look for these key words………OH wait… you went back and deleted all of the profanity aimed at me….. good for you…..

    I haven’t deleted anything except part of one of your comments and I have restored what was deleted from that one. The profanity that was used was aimed at your ideas and not a personal attack. Let’s carry on with civility.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Reality Check …….You say……I haven’t deleted anything except part of one of your comments and I have restored what was deleted from that one……..

      …and I looked and you deleted a bunch of profanity directed AT me from others…..But let us let it go and I will refrain from being rude and or profane for my part in respect for the seriousness of the UNSETTLED ISSUE of Constitutional Law.

  59. UNSETTLED ISSUE of Constitutional Law.

    What is the issue? Is it Barack Obama’s eligibility? Why do you consider it to be “unsettled”. I ask because I can think of very few issues as legally “settled” as that one.

  60. So you can’t actually answer the questions I posed to you. You do know anywhere within the bounds of US soil is subject to the jurisdiction of our laws US citizen or otherwise. So again practical application fails you.

  61. Ah yes typical Steven, There was no “profanity” hurled at you. I’ve paid attention this thread since you first commented the only one being rude here has been you. But as always it has to be some conspiracy other than your paranoid delusions at work.

  62. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    “Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate.”

    -some random guy on the internet, falsely quoting Chief Justice Rutledge

    If there was any doubt, it is now proven that slcraignbc is a member of the SovCit movement, which is the only group that peddles this particular lie.

  63. It’s impossible to discuss in a rational manner simply because you’re not being rational. Again you have yet to present any actual facts. Sorry Steven just calling something a fact doesn’t make it so. You’ve already shown yourself incapable of reading caselaw let alone reading actual US law. Again the text of the act only deals with those who needed to be naturalized or were born overseas and thus has no application to children born on US soil with aliens parents or one alien parent. So again no relevance to the discussion at hand.

    There is no such thing as “subject to the jurisdiction” citizenship. There is only natural born and naturalized citizenship. No that’s not what the act of 1790 said. It makes no mention of native born citizens thus you are once again reading into something that isn’t there.

  64. It’s not having to accept talbot since the ruling of the case had to do with property rights and not actual citizenship.

  65. How does either case support your position? Oh so you’re getting emails on your own responses since they’ve been devoid of an actual point. You fail to respond to anything that is actually said to you and instead go on a rant about what little you know about US Law.

  66. You do know the thing you keep attributing to Rutledge is the syllabus of the case and not the actual opinion written by Rutledge.

    • slcraignbc says:

      OK………..This will be my last post on RC’s Blog…and my last contact with him……..

      In response to Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran) apparent confusion by the Justia and or Cornell format that heads the Rutludge Opinion with the word Syllabus and then hyperlinks s Rutledge’s name to the SAME OPINION………………fine…….

      ….it has become apparent that not a single person that has responded to any of my posts at this blog has any desire to be intellectually honest as to the the nature of U.S.Constitutional Law insofar as U.S. Citizenship and it’s Constitutional origin is concerned,

      There is an IDENTIFIABLE beginning to U.S. Citizenship under the Constitution with limited means and circumstances of acquiring U.S. Citizenship provided for in the 1790 / ’95 Act’s, which in large measure remain as Statute at Large by virtue of the “established uniform Rule”, i.e., “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”.

      But sheep do what they do and going around in circles with the flock of sheep on this site has become boring by the lack of a single intelligent response.

      So to all of you feudal loving Lord Coke / Sir Blackstone / and penumbra zone Gray sycophant subjects……..Cheerio ……

  67. @slcraignbc

    I assume that means you are backing out of the debate with Frank Arduini that you had agreed to do now that you have had your fill of having your ideas subjected to a critical analysis?

    Your views are just wrong. There is no “unsettled question” concerning President Obama’s eligibility. Not only does he rightfully hold the office having been Constitutionally elected twice and Constitutionally sworn in twice, he has withstood over 225 challenges of various types. Several of the courts have said that Obama by virtue of birth on US soil is a natural born citizen.

    Most of what you have argued here has been flatly contradicted by facts. You have made up terms like “Policy Citizenship” that have no basis in fact.You have argued that the 14th Amendment naturalizes citizens. It doesn’t. No serious expert on Constitutional law agrees with you. That is why among other reasons your case and your arguments went no where.

  68. It’s not my confusion with Justia or Cornell law (which I use) It is the syllabus. You got your quote direct from free republic who also said it was the quote from the syllabus. Please show us a direct link to Rutledge’s opinion. You do know several justices gave an opinion in the case.

    But it’s no surprise you’re running. Everytime you’ve been asked a direct question you avoid answering it. You still left every question I’ve asked you unanswered but it’s not surprising birthers are dishonest cowards.

    I’ve responded to your nonsense posts and pointed out the flaws in your reasoning as have others here. The only one not being intellectually honest is you. You’ve misconstrued laws, misinterpreted what is actually said in the laws and from there have made conclusions that don’t actually exist in the laws.

    Neither the Naturalization law of 1790 or 1795 addresses citizenship for anyone born in the country. Why is that? It’s a naturalization law for those not born citizens. Thus it is not germane to the discussion of President Obama who was born a citizen of the United States through his birth in Hawaii.

    Yes God forbid we actually use what is established US law instead of some drooling sovcit nonsense which has never been a winning strategy in court. You’ve already said you think the courts are wrong. Everyone seems to be wrong and only Steven Lee Craig somehow with no legal training knows the real laws of the US.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  69. RoadScholar says:

    “…another one bites the dust!”

  70. Jim says:

    slcraignbc says: “So to all of you feudal loving Lord Coke / Sir Blackstone / and penumbra zone Gray sycophant subjects……..Cheerio ……”

    Hey, I understand Craig. There’s really no contest when you weigh your word against that of a retired SCOTUS, you’re going to get crushed. So log off, lick your wounds, and head back to your bigoted friends over at the RWNJ sites…they’re as biased as you and won’t mind that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Have a nice weekend! 😀

  71. slcraignbc wrote:

    ….it has become apparent that not a single person that has responded to any of my posts at this blog has any desire to be intellectually honest as to the the nature of U.S.Constitutional Law insofar as U.S. Citizenship and it’s Constitutional origin is concerned,

    The sound you just heard was my irony meter exploding. 😆

    • slcraignbc says:

      Reality Check commented

      slcraignbc write:

      ….it has become apparent that not a single person that has responded to any of my posts at this blog has any desire to be intellectually honest as to the the nature of U.S.Constitutional Law insofar as U.S. Citizenship and it’s Constitutional origin is concerned,

      The sound you just heard was my irony meter exploding. 😆
      ___________________________________________________________

      OK, wise guy….riddle me this……… under the orderly due processes of laws of Government organization on what date and time do the “establishing provisions” take effect upon people, places and things that are subject to the provisions of the Establishing Document….???

  72. Aww poor Steven wasn’t being honest when he claims he was running away. I guess he’s back again to make a fool of himself. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about steven? Or what relevance this has to Barack Hussein Obama II being legally and lawfully the President?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran) says:
      October 3, 2014 at 5:58 pm
      Aww poor Steven wasn’t being honest when he claims he was running away. I guess he’s back again to make a fool of himself. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about steven? Or what relevance this has to Barack Hussein Obama II being legally and lawfully the President?

      See, no rational thoughts on the question ….. just invective juvenile attitude ….

      …. how can you judge what I say or think when you can not even express an cogent thought regarding a simple legal question of law …?

      But I’ll take the time to unsubscribe and not allow myself to be baited as you IDIOTS make yourselves feel good by talking about how you were able to overcome FACT with your FICTITIOUS “citizen / subject” imaginings………

  73. My reaction is a totally rational reaction to that of a crazy person who has time and again been corrected on his lack of knowledge on US law. Do you even know what you’re asking in your question?

    Do you know what relevance it has to to topic? There is nothing juvenile is asking what the relevance is to your off topic rants.

    And there you go again Steven whining when you can’t control the conversation. When you get shown to be nothing but empty in the platitudes you spew. As stated previously you have not brought any facts to this discussion but rather your misreading and misunderstanding of US law. You’ve shown arrogance in claiming only you hold the keys to the real meaning of citizenship law better than the court systems themselves who you constantly claim have been in error.

    We’re not the ones trying to make ourselves feel better Steven, you are. Which is why you came here since every else you’ve been heavily moderates any rational opinion that tears apart your stupidity. You think somehow it will make you feel good that you tangled with people with far better knowledge than you when it comes to US law.

    As someone said to me about this thread I’m trying to explain to you calculus when you still haven’t mastered addition and subtraction.

  74. slcraignbc wrote

    But I’ll take the time to unsubscribe and not allow myself to be baited as you IDIOTS make yourselves feel good by talking about how you were able to overcome FACT with your FICTITIOUS “citizen / subject” imaginings………

    Come on. You know you can’t restrain yourself from educating us on the Constitution and only you reads it.

    Yeah we feel pretty good. President Obama is going to complete his second term and history will be very kind to him. The economy is infinitely better than it was when that last guy left office. Millions of American citizens now have affordable health care coverage who did not a few years ago. The stock market is at record levels. Thousands of young men and women are no longer in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan. America has vastly improved its reputation abroad. Incompetent right wing nut jobs are no longer being appointed to judicial positions. Yes, we are feeling good. Real good.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s