PrintSmith wrote: Why is it so necessary for you to misrepresent what I say in order to refute it Z?
I don't, PrintSmith. As far as I'm concerned, your word-smithing skills are unparalleled here and elsewhere. United State of America? To whom, exactly, do you owe your allegiance? To whom do you turn, exactly, for disaster relief when it goes beyond what the state of Colorado can handle by itself?
No, PrintSmith. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Your concept of "citizenship" is not one I will ever share. You can explain it in any manner you choose, but you'll never convince me I did anything but state the obvious on this one.
PrintSmith wrote: Why is it so necessary for you to misrepresent what I say in order to refute it Z?
I don't, PrintSmith. As far as I'm concerned, your word-smithing skills are unparalleled here and elsewhere. United State of America? To whom, exactly, do you owe your allegiance? To whom do you turn, exactly, for disaster relief when it goes beyond what the state of Colorado can handle by itself?
My allegiance is owed first to my God, then to my family, then to the other citizens of my State, then to the citizens of other States within the Union, then to the world at large. Using the force of the federal government to take bread off of my family's table, shelter and clothing from my family, so that citizens in States foreign to my own may have it instead violates the most basic understanding of what allegiance is.
My allegiance is first to the poor in Colorado, not the poor in every State but Colorado. My allegiance is first to the aged in Colorado, not the aged in every State other than Colorado. If the citizens of Louisiana suffer a terrible disaster they may depend on the kindly affection that exists between the States that belong to the Union to help them. That is, and always has been, one of the exceptional qualities of this Union. We should never forget the words of President Cleveland that were written when he vetoed the bill to purchase seeds for drought stricken farmers in Texas:
Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.
And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
mises.org/daily/3627
U.S. Citizen
An individual born in the United States.
An individual whose parent is a U.S. citizen.*
A former alien who has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen
An individual born in Puerto Rico.
An individual born in Guam.
An individual born in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
*The Child Citizenship Act, which applies to both adopted and biological children of U.S. citizens, amends Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide for the automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship when certain conditions have been met. Specifically, these conditions are:
One parent is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization;
The child is under the age of 18;
The child is residing in the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien and is in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent; and
If the child is adopted, the adoption must be final.
The above quote is for taxation purposes, but the term "United States Citizen" appears quite frequently.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States (emphasis added) at birth:
Please note the words "citizens of the United States". The site goes on to explain requirements one must meet in order to be, specifically, "a citizen of the United States".
The U.S. Supreme Court has held in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) that there are THREE different meanings and contexts for the word "United States". Hence, there are THREE different types of "citizens of the United States" as used in federal statutes and the Constitution. All three types of citizens are called "citizens of the United States", but each relies on a different meaning of the "United States". The meaning that applies depends on the context. For instance, the meaning of "United States" as used in the Constitution implies states of the Union and excludes federal territory, while the term "United States" within federal statutory law means federal territory and excludes states of the Union. Here is an example demonstrating the Constitutional context. Note that they use "part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution", and the word "the" and the use of the singular form of "meaning" implies only ONE meaning, which means states of the Union and excludes federal territory:
"As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution."
[O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]
No parsing is called for Z. For you to be correct, that there is a national citizen, you have to be able to demonstrate that one can be a citizen of all 50 States simultaneously. All I need do is demonstrate that the laws do not permit a single person to be a citizen in all 50 States simultaneously to defeat your premise.
In the words of someone right here in this forum I'm rapidly losing any shred of respect for that I may have had, why is it so necessary for you to misrepresent what I say in order to refute it, PrintSmith?
I'm confused here Z. You say you view yourself to be first a national citizen and second a citizen of Colorado. Wouldn't a national citizen be a citizen of all 50 States? That is, after all, what the "nation" is, 50 States tied together by a common Constitution, like the bundle of rods that surrounds the axe on the Roosevelt dime. That is what the United States of America is, isn't it?
Edit - The fasces is on the Mercury, not the Roosevelt, dime, apologies for the error.
He covers a lot of ground, none of which apparently bodes well for the long term for the GOP if one is to believe what he says.
Liberal brain candy like that will cause brain decay lol.
Not tonight - I have a headache!
Edit to add: Feeling better this morning - headache is gone. The reason I shared this link in the first place is to point out what I consider to be "lunacy" surrounding the issue of the mid-terms being a "mandate" for conservatives as is being claimed by some on the more conservative side of the aisle. A little clarity and reality from someone on that side of the fence speaks more loudly to this fallacy than anything from the left that I could have shared.
Last edit: 16 Nov 2014 09:47 by ZHawke. Reason: Additional info.
