and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

Kris Kobach the Secretary of State-Elect of Kansas was on the O’Reilly Factor Wednesday night discussing the fight states are engaged in with the federal government over the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment wrongly bestowing US citizenship to children born of illegal aliens.

The usual one-sided discussion was centered around the phrase “..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”. Bill’s false interpretation centered around the fact since that US law enforcement has “jurisdiction” over anyone (except those with diplomatic immunity), anyone within the borders of the USA are under the full jurisdiction as used in the Constitution. (I don’t know why O’Reilly even bothers to have any guests on his show since he knows everything about everything. /sarcasm)

A sojourner of any nation, legal or not, are not “under the jurisdiction” of that nation, completely. A tourist can not be drafted into that nation’s military, vote in their elections nor are they subject to taxes, i.e. estate taxes, if they die within the USA’s borders. They are however subject to criminal juristiction and can be deported, whereas a citizen of the USA can not lose their citizenship, except in certain cases such as a conviction for treason.

This is also important in the battle to expose the Usurper-in-Chief that currently occupies the White House. Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. was never “under the jurisdiction” of the united States of America. He remained a British subject and was under the jurisdiction of British law thus conveying that jurisdiction to his son.

Opening up this debate will have the serendipitous effect of removing the wrongfully applied 14th Amendment from the debate of natural born citizenship.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Constitution, Eligibility and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

  1. CDR Kerchner says:

    Here is an essay I wrote about how we need to be very careful when other than true constitutionalist conservatives speak about 14th Amendment “born Citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen”. The RINOs and DEMs try to conflate these two different terms which are in two different parts of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment did not address “natural born Citizen” status as there was no need to do so for them. “natural born Citizens” are the children of Citizens (plural), that is a child born in the USA to two Citizen parents. Since the newly freed slaves were not born to Citizens the 14th Amendment had to “start the clock” so to speak by granting them “Citizenship” and initial membership into the family of Citizens of the USA by virtue of their being born in the USA and subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the USA. And once these newly freed slave obtained their citizenship status, any children they procreated after that obtaining their basic Citizenship status were automatically “natural born Citizens”. So whenever you hear a “Republican in Name Only (RINO)” or a DEM progressive member of Congress speaking on the “birthright citizenship” issue, listen carefully and parse their statements carefully and see what how some will attempt to confabulate 14th Amendment “born Citizen” with Article II “natural born Citizen”. Here is the link to my essay:
    http://www.scribd.com/Review-of-Birthright-Citizen-Real-or-Just-a-Cover-Story-On-This-Issue-Carefully-Watch-RINOs-Words/d/46431007

    Also, look at and study this chart:

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

  2. The word you’re looking for is DOMICILE. That is a legal word meaning PERMANENT RESIDENCE. When a judge deciding a citizenship case begins, the first thing they do is determine if the child’s parents were domiciled here. Under the law, you can only have ONE domicile at a time. So if say, you are domiciled in Kenya, then you can only be in the USA temporarily and thus not subject to US jurisdiction. Same with the children of foreign diplomats. The case that defines this is Benny VS. O’ Brien in the discussion, which also states quite clearly who is EXCEPTED from the 14th amendment, those people who are here temporarily in the US. The Wong case was decided on the word domicile. And the Elk case is an example of someone declared NOT a citizen because at the time that they were born in the USA, they were under Indian Tribe jurisdiction.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s