Mexico may elect a far left President

So the ship has sailed and is now in port, at anchor. Can you explain what significance this has to a baby?

Did you not start with Vattel? But even that psychopath will not support your claim, in fact he states just the opposite.

I have to ask being where we are, I take by Amendment 14 you are referring to section 1?

Where in this statement does it state anything about Admiralty Law? Under Admiralty law, just because your ship is docked in my port does not make it my ship. And this is precisely what is being talked about with this claim.

But not is not what is conveyed by Amendment 14. This Amendment conveys the true freedom as so well stated in the Declaration of Independence and the rule by which slaves shall be handled.

What you are failing to comprehend is the effects of registration wherein the state assumes ownership and is responsible not to allow spoilage upon that ownership. Remarkable what an understanding of a little law will do for one, isn't it?

But when you put mystical beings in black robes and believe they are gods, you get what you got.

 

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

Just as an American citizen is on foreign soil, he or she is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Bill Clinton received his draft notice while being a Rhodes Scholar while living in England.

American pedophiles who travel to Thailand to have sex with children are attested at the airport when they return to the USA.

American citizens always owe their loyalty to America no matter where they are in the world just as Mexican citizens still come under the jurisdiction of Mexico when on U.S. soil. Why do you think Mexico has over 50 Mexican consulates in America and issue Matrícula cards to its Mexican citizens who don't have a Mexican passport ???

 

True, and I also do not appreciate an election result going against the will of the voters. Having said that, at least they don't vote for an anonymous person who will then cast a vote for the president and then can still vote against the wishes of the voters of that anonymous person.

 

You certainly make a good point.

 

I see that you have found the key to Amendment 14, Section 1 but have no clue what the lock looks like much less where to find it. Being most, not knowing any better, believe the constitution to be law, let's look at your claim vrom teh legal standpoint:

So are you claiming that Amendment 14 turned this nation into a democracy? No it didn't. One owing the duty of allegiance is owed the duty of protection and we all know that isn't true. But those mystical beings in black robes have also found it necessary to define the two words together, "subject to":

The definition of slavery, so are you claiming that all upon the land are slaves, then whom is the master? Guess that shoots the hell out of any thoughts of equality but then that was the purpose of the fake Amendment 13, not to free the slaves but to make all equal in slavery.

Now the most important word, jurisdiction; in the sense of etymology, speak rights but first the word juris:

Interesting, and the legal profession calls itself jurist but they are "at" law. That lost most of you, but moving on:

Being this is all about people, then:

Now as the Mexican migrants are not naturalized nor are they born in the country, so this country has no jurisdiction unless they commit harm (fraud is harm) to another person. These people, having pledged allegiance to Mexico, vote for that which imprisons them, so what is the problem on their masters making it easy to change the puppet for their oppression?

 

Next time you're in Washington DC you need to visit this place.


You'll find all of the transcripts and notes that were taken when the authors of the 14th Amendment was being debated in Congress.
First thing you will notice is that the 14th Amendment is based upon Vattel's "Law of Nations" and was quoted so many freaking times by the authors of the 14th Amendment.

There are Constitutionalist who define the Constitution with the original intent of the founding fathers and the authors of its amendments and there are revisionist, cultural-marxist, communist, Alinkyites who claim the Constitution is a breathing document and that its meaning can be changed any time without using the amendment process to further a leftist political agenda.

Look at the SCOTUS today. There are four Chief Justices who are revisionist and legislate from the bench.
Ever looked at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ??? Really scary.

Why not eliminate the Congressional and Executive branches of government and have judges running the country ?

Anchor babies are not American citizens.

 

Why, I have access from the seat I'm in right now. The only way there will be a "next" time for DC is the public hanging on the White House lawn of the past residents still alive and many more in effegy. Now throw in a few from the hill and the executive and all the legislative branch and I would even live in the district on a street corner just not to miss the fun.

You mean this "Law of Nations"?

So you believe in a constitution, why? To anyone that would use "original intent" is buying into the bullcrap of the injustice system. Words are words and have exact meanings, especially when left intentionally vague. But "they" can do whatever they want include burning it, does not affect me in the least.

Why would I want to? They do not affect me and aren't scary at all, just cowards.

Excellent idea, eliminate the idiots and the guns and the psychopaths have no power. P.S. Just stop paying taxes will eliminate all three.

Anchor baby, is that a baby with an anchor around it neck? Anchor babies do not exist but then fictions are the large part of being a citizen. That would make them a citizen.

 

Emer de Vattel, "The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns"

Not "Common Law" but natural law the "Law of Nature."

England still doesn't have a Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution that exist today.

Anchor babies are not American citizens just as before 1924 with the "Indian Citizenship Act" Native Americans were not U.S. citizens because the United States didn't have jurisdiction over Native Americans, they were a sovereign people belonging to a sovereign nation.

"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..."


When a foreigner or illegal alien (non-US citizen) comes to the USA, ignoring America's laws and have a baby for the purpose of making the baby a US citizen. The baby becomes eligible for all kinds of free stuff paid for by the U.S. taxpayers giving the illegal alien/foreign parent and their family grounds to come to and stay in the US and become eligible for government benefits. Also called a "jackpot baby".


Maria, an illegal alien from a shithole country, had her baby in the USA. Thanks to her anchor baby, now she and her whole family are sucking off the taxpayers.

 

The law of nations is a philosophy book, and has no relevance to US law. The supreme court settled this issue in the 1800's. US law is based on british common law.

US v Wong Kim Ark.

Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

 

nope. You are only subject to the law of the country you are currently in. No other countries laws are valid inside US borders. No US laws are valid outside US borders.

And "subject to the jurisdiction therof" was ruled to mean being physically present inside US borders. Plyler v Doe.

 

Doesn't matter. Mexico has always had a corrupt gov't including the police. So one party or 20 will make no difference. It is the culture of many of these south of the border nations. They were not founded by english settlers but mostly spanish. Different values.

If the same kind of english had settled mexico southwards, you would have had totally different cultures, closer to american culture. And the new world would be a world powerhouse today, more than just the US.

 

Re: U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark

"Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen." Unless you were a Comanche, Apache, Cheyenne or a member of some other Native American tribe.

FYI:
Wong Kim Ark parents were not illegal aliens but were lawfully living in America.
The left always over looks that.

"Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, How the Natural Law Concept of G. W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers."

The Law of Nations and The Constitution

Vattel

``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.''
{--Preamble of The Constitution of the United States}


Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions.

To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by either the Parliament or the monarchy, or by the ``Venetian'' financiers who are the real power over the British Empire. Consequently, the British constitution remains to this day little more than a mask for the arbitrary power of the oligarchy.

The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution.

American writers quoted {The Law of Nations} on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, ``The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,'' that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, ``Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' `that their authority does not extend so far,' and `that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.'|'' In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.

The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written, as we will see below... -> http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton's Approach to Natural Law

"Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, How the Natural Law Concept of G. W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers."


Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations's first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel's work, "The Law of Nations."

The issue of whether the American Republic would be a true republic, or merely a new government of landed aristocrats and financial oligarchs, was the central issue of the dispute, in which Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson became leaders on the two opposing sides. Contrary to most of today's lying historians, Hamilton was the leader of the republicans, and Jefferson, a leader of the aristocratic party. Although many men contributed to the founding of the United States, it is useful to focus on Hamilton, since of all of America's founders, he was most clearly influenced by Vattel, and his actions were most coherent with Leibnizian natural law. No one played a more important role than Hamilton, in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and in fulfilling its Leibnizian mandate. A number of Hamilton's key initiatives show how Vattel's {The Law of Nations} shaped Hamilton's thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States...continue -> http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html

 

It sure didn't help Bill Clinton when he was a Rhodes scholar living in England in 1968 when he received his draft induction orders in the mail.
U.S. citizens could still be drafted when living in a foreign country because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and owe their allegiance to America not to the foreign country they are in.

The South Vietnam government refused to prosecute "butter bar" Lt. Kelly for murder at Mi Lie so Kelly was prosecuted under U.S. law for murder that took place 8,000 miles from the CONUS.

U.S. Marines are routinely prosecuted under U.S.law who are on "The Rock" (Okinawa) not by Japanese authorities for breaking Japanese laws like DUI, speeding, burglary, being drunk, etc. while off base.

Extraterritorial Sexual Exploitation of Children

The extraterritorial sexual exploitation of children is the act of traveling to a foreign country and engaging in sexual activity with a child in that country. Federal law prohibits an American citizen or resident to travel to a foreign country with intent to engage in any form of sexual conduct with a minor (defined as persons under 18 years of age)... -> https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children

 

A cursory glance at Google can dispel all your illusions, all you have to do is try. Mexico has twice the violent death rate that America has.

 

You also don't appear to know why decriminalizing drugs that are criminalized in the U.S. would have any effect on the drug cartels.

 

Vattel is to the "law of nations" as Edward Coke was to the "common law", delusional. Both were so ingrained in a belief system whose influence make their judgements moot. Perhaps you should actually read Vattel before cherry picking that which supports what you want to believe.

"Natural law" and "common law", you seem to have no clue about what each really means nor their relationship to each other. Just what is natural law, do you know? Common law, how do you define that?

Why would I care what England had , has, or will have? Have you ever read the Magna Carta, a document of inherent slavery?

I try and have a constitution at least once a day and like the one you are referring to, you should flush when you're done. By the way, have you ever studied the constitution in any manner other than a collection of approximately 4500 words? Are you aware of the principle around which it was written? Are you aware of the legal structure of the document? In all probability the answer to all these questions would be a resounding "NO". So how do you "feel" justified to tout it as something glorious when you don't even know what it is? Propaganda?

No matter how many times you keep repeating the same sad stories, it will still not make it true. I believe I make my position extremely clear in a previous post about anchor babies and Amendment 14, Section 1. Your regurgitating the same crap that was challenged is not an answer but an admission you have no answer, you're just hung up on a narrative. So unless you have something in the nature of objective evidence that refutes what I have offered, you have no argument, just prejudiced opinion shown to be in error.

But my hat's off to Maria, her I can respect as she is operating within the spear of the natural law; a mother looking for the best for her offspring. I wonder how many more Maria's it would take before the "taxpayers" realize just whom is the honest party?

 

Three strikes, you're out!

If the law of nations is, in your opinion, a philosophy book, then I would be somewhat hesitant to ask, what is your definition of philosophy? Now to the strikes:

The mystical beings in black robes settles nothing, they offer an opinion to agree or disagree with the opinions before them. What do they need to put back on those white wigs (white to show arsenic survival)?

US law is not based on British common law, it has it's basics in the works of Locke, Blackboure, Coke and other deplorable British jurist. Jurist, funny name that as in Latin juris is right, like in correct. Common law is based on the bible which is where the British got it, but the bible is not the source of common law.

This is the one and only question answered by this opinion. So unless your circumstances fit into the narrow window of circumstances described, you don't fit. Like Ted Cruz born in Canada of a Cuban father and US mother, has by the virtue of his mother a right to be naturalized if he so desires but did he? That is also all that Ark received, a right to become a naturalized citizen. As a side note, Cruz's father just became naturalized in the past few years when his son had mistaken, even though in the past he had claimed otherwise, himself to be qualified to run for president.

Oh by the way, the final:

Doesn't exactly support your claim, does it?

 

Wrong again, is it the word law that is confusing you? In addition to the law of the land, man is subject to any country to which they have pledged allegiance up to and including a foreign nation arresting and holding for extradition.

Right in US v Wong Kim Ark was the opinion for the subject at hand or is it that you are posting snippets and have never read the opinion?:

As to Plyer v Doe, those mystical beings in black robes must have had a rah rah session before this opinion because they are certainly high on themselves and their was no ruling in this case, they affirmed the opinion of the district court.

But Plyer v Doe is plain sick:

I have never seen theft put into plainer language. Those mystical beings in black robes declaring that if you can't pay, don't worry we'll take it from those that can.

​

And those mystical beings now transform into legislators in black robes. But the real goal of these mystical beings was expressed thus:

There is no education in this country nor any other where the task has been forsaken by the parents. All that remains is the indoctrination system designed to hide the key to knowledge so to develop good little citizens that can be bribed with their own money. Well at least money stolen from those that have to give to those that don't.

But no where have I found what you are trying to claim, got a paragraph number?

 

Natural Law:

1. a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.

Now you know why leftist hate Natural Law aka "Law of Nature."


Actually I have read Vattels cover to cover, have you ???

Vatttels use to be required reading in most university Constitutional law classrooms and required treading in most law schools.

Fiveteen years ago you googled "Vattels Law of Nations" nothing came up and only large libraries, research libraries and law libraries had Vattels on the shelf in the reference section.

Vattels didn't become relevant again until around 2006 when the question was asked again, what's a natural born citizen ?

The first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Jay...

who said when the intent or meaning or law can't be found in the U.S. Constitution, Vattels "Law of Nations" will be used.

They use to teach that back in our schools before revisionism became the norm.

Any judge who sits on the bench who doesn't have the U.S. Constitution and Vattels in front of him or her is very likely a revisionist, activist who legislates from the bench and ignores or rejects the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

 

I live in Oaxaca, Mexico, and have for years. A friend of mine, a retired professor, is, of course, a communist. The State of Oaxaca elected a communist governor and my professor friend had an orgasm. "Oh, the sun will shine brighter, the birds will sing happier, and the world will prosper." I laughed and said, "Today, all of Ulysses family is getting rich in the government. All that will change when Cue comes into office is his family will start getting rich."

Two years later the professor said, "You were right. Nothing changed."
Mexico's political parties run from left to far left.

What's really funny is that Mexicans are under the impression the bureaucrats and politicians in the U.S. aren't corrupt.

 

Care to tell me about it then? Here or elsewhere if you prefer.

 

You are the one that said it would put an end to the cartels. I didn't. Who would export drugs into the U.S. if not the cartels.

 

McMaster: Russia Meddling in Mexico’s Election – …
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/07/mcmaster-russia-meddling-in...
McMaster: Russia Meddling in Mexico’s Election White House Declines to Offer Details on Accusation Jason Ditz Posted on January 7, 2018 Categories News Tags McMaster, Mexico, Russia A video clip has emerged from a recent talk by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, is which he accused Russia of “a sophisticated effort” to meddle in the …

McMaster: US sees signs of Russian interference in Mexican ...
www.businessinsider.com/mcmaster-us-russia-interference-mexico...
Analysts and officials have warned for some time about potential Russian attempts to influence the outcome of nationwide elections in Mexico this summer.

Tillerson warns Mexico to watch Russian election meddling ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-russia/tillerson...
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Mexico on Friday to pay attention to Russian meddling in elections around the world, following comments from another U.S. official that there were signs of such interference in the country's presidential race.

Russian meddling in Mexican election is no joke: journalist
https://mexiconewsdaily.com/.../russian-meddling-is-no-joke-journalist
The possibility of Russian interference in this year's presidential election is no joke, Mexican journalist León Krauze wrote yesterday.


Damn those Russians, huh?

 

I’ve be down this batshit crazy rabbit hole with you more than once. Your argument remains completely refuted. Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. Their parents legal status is entirely irrelevant, unless they are foreign diplomats, or an official invading army.

 

Try and focus. Clinton has nothing to do with your incorrect claim. The Supreme Court case I cited, shows you the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction there of”