Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Intent Of 14th Amendment's Authors


Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14thAmendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
(Underling added)

Trump & Children Of "Illegals"


Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Children Of Illegal Immigrants


If Ivan Boris Doe and Juan Batista Roe embezzle money from their employers, fail to pay lawful taxes, rob banks and on-the-street citizens and put all of their illegal gains in a trust fund for their children, are those children entitled to those funds? I think not.

If Ivan Boris Doe and Juan Batista Roe illegally come to the USA and engender children here, are those children entitled to the benefits of US citizenship? That is a debatable legal issue!

Section-1 of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution gives the rights of citizenship only to those persons under the jurisdiction of this nation.
Illegal immigrants have, by their unlawful entry into the USA, avoided that jurisdiction. Therefore, they have no more rights to give the highly valued fact of citizenship to their children born here than would the above noted Ivan Doe or Juan Roe have to pass on their ill gotten gains to their children.This concept has not been tested in the Courts; But, it should be. After all, the 14th Amendment was designed to deal with slaves who had just been given freedom and NOT immigrants.


The intent of that Amendment had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. Any Executive Order or Act-Of-Congress would only return the law from its unwarranted expansion by Judges."making law from the bench" to the meaning of the Authors of the 14th Amendment.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018


Intent Of 14th Amendment's Authors


Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14thAmendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
(Underling added)

Friday, March 31, 2017

Proposed Constitutional Amemendments



Concerning Immigration & Citizenship: Persons who illegally enter the United States or illegally remain there after a legal entry or who have falsely applied for citizenship may be immediately removed from the Nation or confined until removal upon only evidence of of those illegal actions. The children of such persons are not citizens of the United States by reason of their birth in our nation but have and maintain the citizenship held by their parent(s). (This article protects the value of lawful citizenship in the USA and is consistent with many nation's laws.)

CONCERNING LIMITING JUDICIAL ACTIONS: A. Any judicial decision limiting or overturning an act of the Congress as executed by the President is limited to the judicial district or circuit in which it was made until confirmed by The Congress or The Supreme Court Of The United States; B. Any decision of The Supreme Court Of The United States may be reversed or nullified by a two-thirds vote of the House Of Representatives; C. All decisions of the courts of the United States shall use the intent of the authors of Constitution, its amendments and the Laws of the United States as the basic authority and source for such actions. (These provisions return constitutional power to the People and their democratically elected representatives as taken from them by individual or small groups of unelected judges.)

Thursday, March 17, 2016

President Jefferson On The Constitution

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed." [Please specially note that the term "trying" was used as in "boiling down" something (eg Whale blubber or the Constitution) to obtain what the actors wish (eg Whale oil or perverse decisions by judges "making law from the bench"; About which "trying" please see the novel Moby Dick.]

INSULTING PRESIDENT JEFFERSON: Anyone who diminishes Jefferson's statements must first:
1. Demonstrate their equal or greater contributions to our Republic; And,
2. Be subject to an intense-forensic study of their entire life as to sexual or any other crimes.

Dealing With Terrorists

There is only  way of stopping mass shootings or other (As presents "a clear and present danger of death or great bodily injury) threatened acts of terrorists.. That is having our fellow, law-abiding, legally presumed sane and courageous, adult, citizens have immediate access (eg By concealed carry) to modern firearms "put down" such dangerous animals.

It is usually the case that police will not be on-site to do so. (In a few cases, the police have been unwilling to do their duty.)

Anyone who is opposed to such laudable possession and use-of-arms is an advocate for all criminal-terrorists.

The leaders of religious communities must remember that self-defense is a "Natural Law" right. [Some maintain that the defense of innocent others is a like and a religious duty.]

Christians should consider The Christ's command as declared in Luke 22:35-38 (http://crusaderknight.blogspot.com/2012/07/luke-22-35-38-different-view.html). Sikhs should look to their history of going armed to defend themselves and all others from criminal attacks---Especially those based on religion. Jews should remember: Babalonian Talmud; Sanhdren 72:1---"If someone comes to kill you, get up early and kill him first".

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Chief Justice Marshall, Constitution, Intent

I am a "contrary person" whose first impulse to any proposition in which I find the slightest weak parts. At age 80-years I am also a (Self-declared) "Avocational Historian" with a special interest in the formation of our Republic and its institutions (eg SCOTUS).

The Founders were the product of the British system in which: Parliament was the final authority in all legal matters; But, which body turned over a limited judicial review to the "Law Lords" in its upper House.

I suggest that lacking "Lords" The Founders invented SCOTUS to hear such appeals of lower court decisions but NOT legislative decisions. I doubt me that they intended the courts to be a "co-equal" branch of our, then, new government.

Chief Justice Marshall mutated our Constitution, The Law and the intent of The Founders by making the courts "More equal" than that other branches as Federal judges/justices are not subject to the censure or approval of The People as expressed by their democratic voting as encourages or constrains our President and the Members of The Congress.

Over the years many Federal (And even State) jurists have used that power to overturn or vacated the acts of our democratically-elected public officials. This has been aggravated by, for example, US District Court judges doing so as applies to the entire United States

In many cases they have also ignored or pointedly rejected the intent of the authors of our 1789 Constitution, all of its amendments and laws as enacted by The Congress. Some of those offences were based on the concept of "Changing social conditions" as does not appear in our Constitution.

In the worst cases, Justice and, even, lower court judges, have tyrannically amended the Constitution by avoiding the democracy-based amendment process as requires the approval of the elected Members of the Congress and a quorum of elected Legislatures.

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Self-Defense Protocols---Updated


SELF-DEFENSE PROTOCOLS
AGAINST CRIMINALS PRESENTING A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF DEATH OR
GREAT BODILY INJURY TO OTHERS


  1. From the FBI---"Two to the chest and one to the head”; OR,
    2.  From the SEALS/SAS---"A double tap to the head"; OR,
    3. From the "Old Sarge"---"Four inches with the point and twist the blade, REPEAT"; Or,
    4. Thrusting the full length of a pen or pencil through the eye of an attacker; Or
    5. From other sources--- "An intense strike to the temple, spine or "Adam’s Apple" with a heavy cane OR use of the point of a cane or umbrella  to the throat, groin, eyes or male genitals---Followed by a disabling/killing thrust to the base of the skull or spine; Or, Any of the common cuts in kenjitsu.
The only insurance that an attacker or bully or other tyrant is no longer a danger is when s/he has stopped breathing.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Dealing With Dangerous Mobs---Updated


This is in response to the recent mob actions in Portland (Oregon) and our Republic's Capitol Building,  Supreme Court building AND against various Members of The Congress and Administration.

Mobs are, as such, a probable “clear and present danger of death or great bodily harm” to others..
When such mobs are armed or commit such dangerous crimes as “Arson” (eg Both evident at Berkeley in recent days) they clearly demonstrate and multiply that “clear and present danger”---And justify the police or any good citizen to use any level of force (Including deadly force) to suppress that danger.

In fact, the failure of police (Or, if called up by Governors who understand their duties, the National Guard), to fire upon such extremely dangerous mobs as both individuals (ie By snipers under the direct control of a command officer) and by volley-fire in the case of any group attack is a gross neglect of duty.

Of course, free (ie Armed) citizens can assist the police by "marking" such and other violent criminals with holes [eg .222", 9mm, .32" (The diameter of "OO" buckshot), .38", .45"].

[For general information, the hard touch of a triangular file to the lands of a gun's barrel and the lighter touch of a flat file to the firing-pin and extractor of such will negate the usual forensic information.]

[The above possibility of such actions, by law-abiding and threatened, citizens may well be the reason that the mis-leaders of the Democratic (sic) Party have taken the lead in attempts to deprive our fellow citizens of modern-and-effective firearms. "Putting down" such dangerous animals is far more likely to reduce the Democrats power base than that of the GOP.]

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Reparations For Black Americans---From What Sources???


The "Black Lies Matter" mob has vomited out a new claim for reparations for the USA's Blacks,

I am unsure how the "accounting" should be executed as to such a matter.

CLAIMS AGAINST AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS:  Whatever the claim might be in-total, the first claim for payment should be against the current Black-controlled governments of Africa as are the political descendants of the Black rulers who sold other Blacks into slavery.
    After all, without those enslavements-and-sales there would have been few, if any, Blacks in the USA to make such claims.

AFTERWARDS---CLAIMS AGAINST THE USA:   If, and only if, those Black ruled African nations satisfy those basic claims (ie Even if it totally depletes their national resources---Including the moneys stashed out-of-country by their most corrupt rulers) then claims against the USA might be considered.

BASE DATE:  Until at least January 1, 1863 Slavery was legal in the USA. If, and only if,  we are a "Nation Of Laws", we must limit such claims to times which persons (Or the Nation) can lawfully be held liable.
   Perhaps, it would be "just" to move that date to January 1, 1900 ---A generation-plus after Emancipation.

SOME OTHER CREDITS AGAINST SUCH CLAIMS:  The disproportional costs inflicted by Blacks  as to crimes, remedial education (Including at universities),  "affirmative action", bastard children, AODA and other such costs must be deducted from any such ("Creative") claims.

Operationally Defining "Mob(s)" & Disposition Of Such Threats

There are some who deny the existence of "mobs".

In this time of easy video recording, easily obtained "film" of groups of individuals endangering others by attacking them by use of weapons or their collective, bodily mass OR by threatening them by the volume of collective shouting, screaming and their beast-like braying and howling provides an "operation definition" of mobs and mob action.

Those who state that violence is never the solution!  They are incorrect! The use of violence is allowed, and truly commanded, to protect the innocent from dangerous attacks by individual or collectives of criminals (eg "Mobs"). Those packs represent "a clear and present danger of death or great bodily harm" to legally innocent others.

As to the above, the "film" of such incidents would best continue with scenes of law-abiding, well armed and duty-bound citizens  (ie Lacking the presence and willingness of Police to instantly stop such mobs) "putting down" those dangerous animals and then offering views of those critters bleeding out in restaurants, gutters and university squares to Americans very different from those who were at Lexington, Shiloh, Omaha Beach, Midway and other places where violence was used to "put down" the enemies of our Republic and of civilization itself as are today's smaller, but no less dangerous, mobs. 

 [In the case you might wonder, I a veteran of dangerous military and (Paid and unpaid) civilian duties as served for the protection of my fellow Americans. Oh, did you so serve?]

Monday, October 08, 2018

Kavanaugh: Women Vs. Ladies

The gonad driven female fanatics who have inflicted unreason and mob-violence about the Kavanaugh hearings-and-debates brought back to my mind the below thoughts.

First, what is a "Lady"? Such a female-person has the full measure of the distilled essence of the best of what some women have (As is not had by men and too often, not understood by men and males). Having that essence, a Lady can offer others friendship, affection and love without giving up rational thought.

(Yes, there are essential differences between men and women as are formed by the many generations of genetic selection a truth denied by such mobs as deny that, excepting some genetic "sports" And a very few species, this world is populated by bi-sexual creatures.)

The women who brayed out such chants as "I Believe!" reminded me all to much of their, like Fascist, ancestors who screamed out "Heil Hitler" not that long ago.  

Ladies also remember that they have fathers, sons, husbands, boyfriends and less-intense male friends who respect,admire and sometimes love those ladies. In return, or based on their essential essence and loving-logic, "Ladies" oppose inflicting on those gentlemen any judicial-or-social system which equates accusation-with-guilt.

To be brutally blunt, those opposed to the confirmation of The Honorable Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on SCOTUS appear to be dedicated-and-driven to
politically and socially castrate men and gentlemen. (Hawaii's  US Senator Hirono, by her recent comments against males, has provided exact proof of her committed membership in that pack of howling critters.)

(I had, during our life together, a wife who was a "Maximum Lady". She is missed by many since her departure from this world. She was a strong woman and with a very independent turn-of-mind!)

Friday, October 05, 2018

Now---Circuit Courts Of Appeal

The Fascist and evil assault on The Honorable Brett Kavanaugh appears to be set for defeat.


I now suggest that The Senate and the People now attend more carefully to those nominated to the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal.

It appears that such attention must now and hereafter be most especially focused on the Ninth Circuit which is:

1. The Court most overturned by SCOTUS;

2. Is heavily influenced, in en banc, hearings by retired ("Senior") judges who appear to be immensely opposed to the interpretation of our Constitution (And its amendments) in accordance with the intent of their authors and favor "judges making law and amending the Constitution from the bench";

3. Those judges come chiefly from "The Peoples Republics" of California, Oregon, Washington State and Hawaii where those jurisdictions have been active in attacking those rights which should be protected by The Bill Of Rights.


I suggest that The Congress require (Under its constitutional authority over the jurisdiction of the Courts) that all members of en banc panels be "active", not "senior", judges.


Parallel to that recommendation is the additional suggestion that nominees to positions on the Ninth and all other Circuits be limited to those who will declare that they will consider the intents of the above-cited authors as the primary standard for their legal decisions. [This does not require them to address decisions on individual cases (eg Roe vs. Wade derivatives; Second Amendment cases).].


Wednesday, October 03, 2018

A Matter Of Law

If the recent inquisition, regarding The Honorable Brett Kavanaugh, is a "job application", it would appear that the best base for any votes on confirmation would be his "Job  Performance" as an appeals court judge. Yet, I have heard/read of only a very few. remote, comments about his very many decisions during his current "employment". 

Of course, that would require his attackers to present evidence of any unlawful or unwarranted prejudice (ie "Pre-Judgement") as was based on will or bias and not reasoned decision making as based on, for example, the contrary views of other judges on each such, if any, case. It appears that the responsible (sic) Members of the Democratic (sic) Party have avoided that rational approach as they lack evidence of such improper decision-making.

Those "persons" have, instead, slandered Judge Kavanaugh by attacks on his record of behavior outside of the judicial process. They also have failed to 
produce such evidence as supports the existence of any personal faults (Beyond the horrid "crime"  of throwing ice cubes as a teen) as would even hint at any such fault. The still call on "the mob" to rely on "I believe", based on biased hate,rather than the "I know" as supported by facts-and-logic (A).

Many of those slanderers, themselves, have clearly demonstrated such lying and other misconduct as would make them not-believable witnesses at any hearing or trial.  [eg During this "process" Senator Feinstein lied as to some facts regarding "The Second Amendment" (B) as, away from the special protections given Members, would have made her liable, if on oath/affirmation, for conviction of "Perjury".]

Here I note that I approached Dr. Ford's and Judge Kavanaugh's testimony on the basis of my 34-years, professional experience, of interviewing witnesses and other persons to determine such facts as might be considered evidence. (Also, I am an educated and trained Social Worker and, until after retired, held a Wisconsin licensed as such.) On that basis of that experience I found that Dr. Ford's testimony was: Lacking in verifiable facts; The product of a "disturbed mind" (Afflicted by prior trauma NOT inflicted by Judge Kavanaugh); And, possibly, warped by prior "therapies" and intense "preparation" (ie "Brainwashing") by Democrats.  

If Judge Kananaugh had not expressed heartfelt anger at those Fascists persecuting him I would have found him too inhuman to be a judge.