So we have a US born American citizen being held without trial

[Poor Richard Saunders]

in states of emergency the president can do whatever he feels necessary.

did you read the Patriot act?

Did you? I don't see where it gives the President the power to arrest judges in section 106 which grants Presidential authority.

It gives the President the power to seize assets of foreigners if they are associated with terrorists.
It also allows the President to submit evidence to the courts ex parte and in camera in defense of their actions.

 

[Bai Lan]

Did you? I don't see where it gives the President the power to arrest judges in section 106 which grants Presidential authority.

It gives the President the power to seize assets of foreigners if they are associated with terrorists.
It also allows the President to submit evidence to the courts ex parte and in camera in defense of their actions.

he can arrest anyone who is aiding and abetting enemies.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

national defense is the president's sole purview.

No. It clearly isn't. Are you familiar at all with history. After Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, it was Congress that declared war on Japan. That is a power granted only to Congress in the Constitution.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

he can arrest anyone who is aiding and abetting enemies.

Would you care to point out where he is given that power in the Patriot Act? (Hint - he isn't.)

 

[dancindave]

Would you care to point out where he is given that power in the Patriot Act? (Hint - he isn't.)

Leave it to those burning Bush’s Federal Lynching KKKidnapping churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist “what is 9/11 ?” rhetorical Freudian slip where a fabricated stolen voting ballot has the Islamidiotocracy of Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Bicentennial Fourth Reich July George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are deemed Islam for the not so master race not so master plan of Christiananality pedophilia of the Federal Lynching KKKidnapping churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of human reproduction medical pseudoscience in that WW II Mengele “Angel of Death” baptize thine eyes by urinations….

 

[Bai Lan]

Would you care to point out where he is given that power in the Patriot Act? (Hint - he isn't.)

he had it before the patriot act too.

the president has always had sole purview over national defense.

 

[Bai Lan]

No. It clearly isn't. Are you familiar at all with history. After Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, it was Congress that declared war on Japan. That is a power granted only to Congress in the Constitution.

who declared war on iraq?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

who declared war on iraq?

Congressional Authorization of Military force in Iraq

 

[Bai Lan]

Congressional Authorization of Military force in Iraq

who declared war in afghanistan?

 

[dancindave]

he had it before the patriot act too.

the president has always had sole purview over national defense.

While since those burning Bush’s Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist “what is 9/11 ?” rhetorical Freudian slip Federal Lynching KKKidnapping churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of Nazi security thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists fabricated stolen voting ballot election fixing in “serve the Pope or die” survival of the fittest fascists sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming of the USA.

 

[Into the Night]

Not when they are in the US, at which point they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

They are never subjects of the jurisdiction of the US, IBD. They are illegal aliens. They are subjects of the jurisdiction of their origination nations.

How do you explain aliens being deported? How do you explain aliens being in court?

They broke the law.

Sure, the parents did. The child born in the US did not.

Irrelevant. The child is deported with the parents. They are not a US citizen. They too are subjects of jurisdiction of the parent's originating nation.

As I recall, you are still on tap to articulate what law the child violated.

Not necessary. The child is simply subject to the same jurisdiction as the mother.

Was that too complicated for you? Let me try dumbing down the wording. The child of the parents is a totally different person from either of the parents.

So? I never said it wasn't.

... but not of hostile occupation. You can't omit that part.

Yes they are.

The Supreme Court has full authority to try cases involving controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.

The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution or any constitution.

... but they do magickally become citizens by the mere fact that the illegal alien parents gave birth to them in the US.

No, they do not. You are also currently locked in paradox here.

... except for the 14th Amendment itself, which grants citizenship to all children born in the US, assuming their parents are not alien enemies in hostile occupation or diplomatic representatives of a foreign State

The 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to anyone.

You don't seem to have any wiggle room.

It is YOU locked in this paradox!

The Supreme Court is authorized to try cases under Article III, and The Supreme Court already decided this issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Supreme Court has NO authority over any constitution.

If your hope is that the Supreme Court will not act on precedent and will instead reverse itself, I believe you are setting yourself up with unreasonable expectations. If you believe that the States will take up a Constitutional Amendment, you're going to need to see a whole lot more grass roots movement across the country in addition to just President Trump's wild stab at working a slavery angle.

No amendment is necessary.

 

[Into the Night]

So the birth certificates are invalid?

No, Sybil. They do properly state the name of the mother and the name of the child.

 

[Bai Lan]

They are never subjects of the jurisdiction of the US, IBD. They are illegal aliens. They are subjects of the jurisdiction of their origination nations.

They broke the law.

Irrelevant. The child is deported with the parents. They are not a US citizen. They too are subjects of jurisdiction of the parent's originating nation.

Not necessary. The child is simply subject to the same jurisdiction as the mother.

So? I never said it wasn't.

Yes they are.

The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution or any constitution.

No, they do not. You are also currently locked in paradox here.

The 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to anyone.

It is YOU locked in this paradox!

The Supreme Court has NO authority over any constitution.

No amendment is necessary.

actually.

if they weren't under our jurisdiction, we couldn't round them up.

you're losing the point.

all this stem from illegals immigration.

 

[Into the Night]

He is so far off base that his argument has already toppled.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. You are still locked in this paradox.

Look, any rational adult should be able to read the 14th Amendment and understand the obviousness of the law.

The 14th amendment does not magickally grant citizenship to illegal aliens or their offspring.

It's like he's trying to read the Constitution but all he sees is Greek. He's getting it all wrong.

It is YOU locked in this paradox. You can't agree with him and not agree with him on the same topic at the same time!

I'm the one, and the only one, who has quoted the relevant material,

Blatant lie (denial). The 14th amendment has been quoted numerous times. So have other parts of the Constitution. There is more to the Constitution than the 14th amendment.

which tells the world exactly how this is going to play out.

You are still locked in this paradox.

You are not going to be on the correct side of this.

So you say...

Birthright citizenship is an inalienable right bestowed by one's Creator who decided to have the birth occur in the US.

Okay. I can no longer consider you an atheist.

Rights do not come from a piece of paper. God did not give birth to the child. The illegal alien did.

 

[Into the Night]

... except that this is the de facto inalienable right shared by all who are born in the US,

You are still locked in this paradox.

and you are simply pouting in denial.

He's not pouting. You are hallucinating.

Open your eyes; see if that will help.

He already has.

Only in the US. Your country can't be better than all the others if it is just like all the others.

You are still locked in this paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Check out Elk V Wilkins

Why weren't American Indians prior to 1925 American citizens even if they were born off the reservation? From 1868 and the passage of the 14th till 1925 is a long time but they weren't citizens. WHY?

By the way. Wong's parents had permanent residency and that is the reason Wong got citizenship.

They always were, but they were not citizens of the United States.

Now they are largely locked onto reservations, which is federal land. THAT makes them citizens of the United States, but NOT of the State the reservation is in.

 

[Into the Night]

There's a difference between dropping a baby off in the US and giving birth to the baby in the US. Giving birth to the baby in the US bestows US citizenship to the baby under the 14th Amendment. Have you taken a look at it? I think it will clear up a lot of your confusion.

You are still locked in this paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Oooops, nope. You definitely need to read the 14th Amendment as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

RAAA.

I have all of the relevant information, which I am trying emphatically to get you to review.

He already did. You are still locked in this paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Both Into the Night and you suffer from the strange conflation misconception that a child is somehow his parents. You aren't going to be able to discuss this topic rationally until you understand that no child is his parents.

I never made any such statement. Mantra 40a. It is YOU locked in paradox here. It is YOU being irrational. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

actually.

if they weren't under our jurisdiction, we couldn't round them up.

you're losing the point.

all this stem from illegals immigration.

Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

By the way, read the decision. Residency wasn't a factor.

Yes it was.

The Supreme Court wasn't trying to legislate, they decided the case based on applying the law, i.e. the 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment wasn't needed here.

 

[Into the Night]

Irrelevant. Indian Reservations were not considered subject to US jurisdiction at the time.

They certainly are! They were created by the US government. They are federal land.
Indians on these reservations ARE citizens of the United States, but NOT of the State(s) the reservation is located in.

By the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, Native Americans were back to being subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, of course, were US citizens.

They already were. The Act was unnecessary, except to clarify. It did NOT grant citizenship to anyone.