Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

[JakeStarkey]

Blah blah blah

File it in court and get blown away.

 

[Skylar]

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

No, read the WKA case, the child born of an ambassador was born a "natural-born subject" of the parents nation. The Ambassador was in ligeance of the King.

None of the passages you've cited mention natural born anything. With the Wong Kim Ark ruling making it ludicrously clear that there was only one way that foreign born children of US citizens could acquire citizenship: Naturalization.

WKA made no exceptions to this rule. You imagined it. Nor did later rulings.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

:yawn: The only thing you are demonstrating is a lack of comprehension. Let me guess, you are a "strict constructionist".

Are you going to tell me this isn't in the WKA opinion, too?

There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

SMFH

That's not a finding of the court about US law, that's a review of British Common law. This is a finding of the court related to US law:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

There are no exceptions recognized by the court. And the Supreme Court has never found your exception to be valid as it relates to US citizenship. But instead, contradicted your assumptions.

Twice.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Unless you're arguing that natural born citizenship is fully deniable, your argument is DOA. Those born outside the US can't meet the definition of a constitutional citizenship. As Wong Kim Ark found, unambiguously and clear as a bell, as that the only way a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized.

You can ignore the findings of TWO USSC rulings if you wish. But you can't make us ignore them.

 

[Skylar]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

Military bases are considered a form of US Territory, US Military law is the law, not the laws of the surrounding country or territory. Military bases fall within the jurisdiction of the US based on SOFA Agreements. They are not territory like American Samoa or Guam are.

Not for the purposes of citizenship they're not.

Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

Much like you v. the Supreme Court, you v. the State Department also has the same winner:

Not you.

Oh, and for the record, US Embassies don't count either.

 

[Contumacious]

You have shown that as a socialist , you oppose individual freedom, the free market and Capitalism and towards that end you encourage judicial tyranny.


.

And now you're just calling me names. Is that really the extent of your argument? You have to know its legally irrelevant. As our constitution doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what names you call people.

You have taken upon yourself to come to this forum and PURPOSELY misrepresent unless you are employed by the so-called judicial system I fail to see how as an individual you benefit from having those motherfuckers USURP powers. .HOW do WE THE PEOPLE benefit from having the TYRANTS take it upon themselves to IMMUNIZE themselves without any Constitutional authority to do so. Stop being a fucking brownoser and explain

You won't believe me, so I suggest you talk to some judges or people who work for them. But here's a hint: they cannot by themselves handle the incredible paperwork etc.

Bullshit

The late Thurgood Marshall, a lifelong defender of the Bill of Rights, told Life Magazine, "If it's a dope case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no dope dealer...

Donna Haupt and John Neary, "Justice Revealed," Life, September 1987, 105.


What would have been his reaction if Chief Justice Earl Warren had stated "If it's a ni99er case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no ni99er...

Ah, you just agreed with me.

How the fuck did I agree with you?


Bullshit

The late Thurgood Marshall, a lifelong defender of the Bill of Rights, told Life Magazine, "If it's a dope case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no dope dealer...

Donna Haupt and John Neary, "Justice Revealed," Life, September 1987, 105.


What would have been his reaction if Chief Justice Earl Warren had stated "If it's a ni99er case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no ni99er...


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Repeating yourself does not help you.

Judges often don't read the briefs.

 

[Contumacious]

Repeating yourself does not help you.

Judges often don't read the briefs.

Repeating yourself does not help you.

How is the cause of individual freedom, Constitutional Law, Due process of law advanced if judges don't read the briefs and are immunized?


.

 

[Syriusly]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

Military bases are considered a form of US Territory, US Military law is the law, not the laws of the surrounding country or territory. Military bases fall within the jurisdiction of the US based on SOFA Agreements. They are not territory like American Samoa or Guam are.

They are not territory for the purposes of citizenship.

Which is a good thing really- because there is no reason why the child born to two Pakistani nationals working as janitors at Diego Garcia should be American citizens, but the child born to a U.S. citizen there should be.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

No, read the WKA case, the child born of an ambassador was born a "natural-born subject" of the parents nation. The Ambassador was in ligeance of the King.

By your reasoning McCain is not a "natural-born citizen". Even the Senate Resolution admits that because he was born on a US Military base to US Citizens he was a "natural-born citizen".
Text of S.Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. (Resolution Agreed to by Senate version) - GovTrack.us

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
​

Note that the Senate doesn't refer to WKA.

The Senate recognized that Senator John McCain was eligible- and I agree that he was. But the Senate resolution was non-binding nor does the resolution explain how he was eligible.

IF you are saying that WKA says Cruz is not eligible, then McCain would not have been eligible under WKA either- he was made a U.S. citizen through action of Congress- not through the 14th Amendment.

Members of the military are a type of diplomat, they are issued a Red US Passport, not the Blue Passport.
What Is a Red US Passport?

Passport Details
The red passport, also described as maroon, is valid for five years. You do not have to pay a fee for a red passport because your travel is on behalf of the government. Those who travel with this type of passport are members of Congress, members of the military, family members of military personnel, and any other private citizen who might be conducting international travel at the request of the government. A red passport is only issued to people who are at least 18 years of age. The State Department will issue minor children traveling with red passport holders a no-fee blue passport.
​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That's not a finding of the court about US law, that's a review of British Common law. This is a finding of the court related to US law:

Is this also not from the WKA Opinion?

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.​

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

There are no exceptions recognized by the court. And the Supreme Court has never found your exception to be valid as it relates to US citizenship. But instead, contradicted your assumptions.

And yet there are exceptions as noted by the court in WKA, mainly soldiers from another nation in occupation of land and Ambassadors.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Children born of Service Members/Diplomats/Ambassadors are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, same as a child born in International waters or air space.

Unless you're arguing that natural born citizenship is fully deniable, your argument is DOA. Those born outside the US can't meet the definition of a constitutional citizenship. As Wong Kim Ark found, unambiguously and clear as a bell, as that the only way a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized.

You can ignore the findings of TWO USSC rulings if you wish. But you can't make us ignore them.

I haven't ignored anything, let alone 2 USSC rulings, nor am I trying to make you ignore them, you seem to be doing that all on your own. McCain was born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, Cruz was not as he was born out of the jurisdiction of the US.[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Repeating yourself does not help you.

Judges often don't read the briefs.

Repeating yourself does not help you.

How is the cause of individual freedom, Constitutional Law, Due process of law advanced if judges don't read the briefs and are immunized?.

Repeating like a parrot is mere trolling. Judges often don't read briefs, their clerks do and the judges read them.

If you think this is wrong, tell us why.

Be specific.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liquid, you can keep repeating material that has not been accepted by SCOTUS to post-14th Amendment births in America.

If you are born of an American parent, you are a citizen eligible to run for president.

 

[Skylar]

That's not a finding of the court about US law, that's a review of British Common law. This is a finding of the court related to US law:

IS this also not from the WKA Opinion?

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.​

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

There are no exceptions recognized by the court. And the Supreme Court has never found your exception to be valid as it relates to US citizenship. But instead, contradicted your assumptions.

And yet there are exceptions as noted by the court in WKA, mainly soldiers from another nation in occupation of land and Ambassadors.

There are exceptions in English Common Law related to being a subject. There are no exceptions in US law related to being a citizen. The court has never found that the foreign born children of military families are natural born citizens. But instead that the only way for those born outside the US to become citizens is to be naturalized.

And as the State department made *ludicriously* clear, that includes to those born on a military base:

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

There's no 'except for the children of military families' exception recognized under US law. Not statutory law, not case law, nothing. The State Department not only contradicts your assumptions, it affirms absolutely nothing you've claimed. Nor does US law.

You've imagined any such exception in US law. And your imagination is gloriously irrelevant to US law.

This simple fact is merely reaffirmed by the Roger decision which, just like the findings of Wong Kim Ark, found that foreign born children to US citizens cannot meet the definition of constitutional citizenship.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

You ignore both the findings of Wong Kim Ark and Roger, along with the State Department and US law.

Um....so what? Your willful blindness has exactly jack shit to do with our laws.

I haven't ignored anything, let alone 2 USSC rulings, nor am I trying to make you ignore them, you seem to be doing that all on your own. McCain was born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, Cruz was not as he was born out of the jurisdiction of the US.

Sure you have. Wong Kim Ark states, unambiguously, that only way for those born outside the US to become citizens is to be naturalized.

You insist that Wong Kim Ark is wrong. That naturalization is NOT the only way. And you simply don't know what you're talking about.

You've ignored the Roger v. Bellie case which gives a clear definition for constitutional citizenship. A definition it found that foreign born children of US parents cannot meet.

You ignored the State Department, insisting that those born on military bases aren't granted citizenship by birth. And making zero mention of any of your imaginary 'except for military families' exception.

But why would we or any other rational people ignore what you do?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Not for the purposes of citizenship they're not.

Right, the premises/land/base are not, but the child born of Diplomats are.

Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

A child born on the premises isn't, just like it states, however the child born to diplomats in service of the US Govt are "natural-born citizens". If a foreigner happened to be on the US Military base in Germany and gave birth, that child is not a US Citizen and is not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Much like you v. the Supreme Court, you v. the State Department also has the same winner:

Not you.

Oh, and for the record, US Embassies don't count either.

LMFAO Coming from someone that obviously doesn't comprehend basic English.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Liquid, you can keep repeating mateerial that has not been accepted by SCOTUS to post-14th Amendment births in America.

If you are born of an American parent, you are a citizen eligible to run for president.

Nope

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

Military bases are considered a form of US Territory, US Military law is the law, not the laws of the surrounding country or territory. Military bases fall within the jurisdiction of the US based on SOFA Agreements. They are not territory like American Samoa or Guam are.

They are not territory for the purposes of citizenship.

Which is a good thing really- because there is no reason why the child born to two Pakistani nationals working as janitors at Diego Garcia should be American citizens, but the child born to a U.S. citizen there should be.

Right, they are not territory or considered as US soil for the purpose of children born on them, however children born of diplomats or military personnel are because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[Skylar]

Not for the purposes of citizenship they're not.

Right, the premises/land/base are not, but the child born of Diplomats are.

Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

A child born on the premises isn't, just like it states, however the child born to diplomats in service of the US Govt are "natural-born citizens".

The courts have never found this to be true. I was born on an overseas US army base to two active duty parents. And my citizenship is statutory in origin. It doesn't meet the definition of constitutional citizenship. Exactly as Rogers found.

As for embassies, nope again.

The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

The only way for someone born outside the jurisdiction of the US to gain citizenship is naturalization. Exactly as Wong Kim Ark found.

LMFAO Coming from someone that obviously doesn't comprehend basic English.

And you just blinked. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to rely on petty attempts at insults.

Yet you can't get by without them.

Wong contradicts you. Rogers contradicts you. The State department contradicts you. Nor does it affirm any of your pseudo-legal nonsense. It appears insults are all you have left.

 

[Syriusly]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

Military bases are considered a form of US Territory, US Military law is the law, not the laws of the surrounding country or territory. Military bases fall within the jurisdiction of the US based on SOFA Agreements. They are not territory like American Samoa or Guam are.

They are not territory for the purposes of citizenship.

Which is a good thing really- because there is no reason why the child born to two Pakistani nationals working as janitors at Diego Garcia should be American citizens, but the child born to a U.S. citizen there should be.

Right, they are not territory or considered as US soil for the purpose of children born on them, however children born of diplomats or military personnel are because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

That isn't what the 14th Amendment says.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Children born to American citizens are born American citizens because of laws passed by Congress. Like Cruz. Like McCain.

Since they are born U.S. Citizens I consider them natural born citizens.

As do millions voting for Cruz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liquid, you can keep repeating mateerial that has not been accepted by SCOTUS to post-14th Amendment births in America.

If you are born of an American parent, you are a citizen eligible to run for president.

Nope

Yep. Show me where with a full cite in the law that is not so.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The courts have never found this to be true. I was born on an overseas US army base to two active duty parents. And my citizenship is statutory in origin. It doesn't meet the definition of constitutional citizenship. Exactly as Rogers found.

Wrong. I have a daughter born overseas on a US Military base while I was in the military, she is a "natural-born citizen".

As for embassies, nope again.

You don't seem to understand the difference between children born to ambassadors/diplomats/ service members overseas verse simply a child born on an overseas installation.

The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

Are you having a hard time comprehending the word premises?

The only way for someone born outside the jurisdiction of the US to gain citizenship is naturalization. Exactly as Wong Kim Ark found.

With the exceptions as WKA noted, namely Ambassadors and persons in service of the govt.

And you just blinked. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to rely on petty attempts at insults.

Yet you can't get by without them.

LMFAO Is that like you claiming I was imagining things?

Wong contradicts you. Rogers contradicts you. The State department contradicts you. Nor does it affirm any of your pseudo-legal nonsense. It appears insults are all you have left.

Nothing contradicts me, your inability to comprehend basic English is your downfall. My psuedo-legal non-sense? LMFAO as if you have any legal knowledge at all. SMFH Gotta love armchair attorneys with no back ground what-so-ever in law.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Liquid, you can keep repeating mateerial that has not been accepted by SCOTUS to post-14th Amendment births in America.

If you are born of an American parent, you are a citizen eligible to run for president.

Nope

Yep. Show me where with a full cite in the law that is not so.

go back and read the comments. More than I have stated Cruz is not a citizen eligible to run, he is not a "natural-born citizen", he is a "naturalized citizen".