HOW AND WHY DID THE MEANING OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT CHANGE?
by Creg Maroney
(Oct. 26, 2011) — Many people leave out very important wording in the 14 Amendment, which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States [[AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ]], are citizens of the United States…
Per the U.S. Constitution, anyone born in the U.S. and NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF are definitely NOT U.S. citizens.
Just because one is born on U.S. soil does not make him a U.S. citizen. No court can overrule the U.S. Constitution which they are supposed to defend and protect. Perversion of the law is not law.
LAW OF THE LAND, WE ARE A REPUBLIC.
CITIZENS RULE BOOK:
[[The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. ” Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” [[16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256]]
The Constitution is clear. Citizens are not eligible to be a president. Only Natural Born Citizens can be eligible for the Office of the President!
This is why when ever political pundits say…..Well Obama was born in Hawaii and has a birth certificate therefore he is a U.S. citizen….you know they are lying and are deliberately engaged in misleading people on the correct meaning of Article 2 Section 1 and the Natural Born Citizen clause.
Thank You Mrs. Rondeau for bringing back comments!
Which is why it is important for people to understand the definition of natural born citizen. I have chosen to present this to people using a tripod as an example. Each leg of the tripod represents one of the requirements to be a natural born citizen. The first leg of the tripod is that one must be born in the country – not a possession or territory but the country itself. The second leg of the tripod is that the mother must be a citizen of the country at birth of the child. And the third leg of the tripod is that the father must be a citizen of the country at birth of the child.
In the 2008 election both candidates put forward by the two major parties were ineligible to be elected or serve as President. I know someone is going mention that Senator McCain’s parents were on military duty but the Panama canal zone is not part of the US. And the law which would have conveyed natural born citizenship was repealed in 1795. And people who have stated that if Mr Obama was born in Kenya he is not a US citizen are basing that on his mother’s age and the Title 28 statue in effect at the time of Mr Obama’s birth. In 1986 the statue changed.
In relations to Amendment 14 one should read the Ark and Elk Supreme Court cases. In the case of Ark he was an Amendment 14 citizen since his parents were immigrants – they had been given permission to enter and live in the US. And they were not diplomats. In the case of Elk he was not a citizen even though born inside the US because he was a subject of his tribe and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Even though he abandoned is tribal allegiance. He effectively became an immigrant who had to be naturalized to be a US citizen. This changed in 1924 when Congress, under the provisions of Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4, made all members of the subjugated native American tribes US citizens. As a result all children born to native Americans after 1924 are native born citizens.
Also, be aware that Supreme Court rulings from Justia.com have been reported to have been tampered with in relations to this subject. So be aware that there are a lot of people trying to hide the facts.
Noticed a type in this paragraph which is corrected. Corrections are in “<>”.
In relations to Amendment 14 one should read the Ark and Elk Supreme Court cases. In the case of Ark he was an Amendment 14 citizen since his parents were immigrants – they had been given permission to enter and live in the US. And they were not diplomats. In the case of Elk he was not a citizen even though born inside the US because he was a subject of his tribe and <> “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” <>. Even though he abandoned <> tribal allegiance. He effectively became an immigrant who had to be naturalized to be a US citizen. This changed in 1924 when Congress, under the provisions of Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4, made all members of the subjugated native American tribes US citizens. As a result all children born to native Americans after 1924 are <> born citizens.