BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UPHELD

[Wrangler]

That is actually a good question, however when they seceded from England as one, and became one, the North did not allow the South to secede primarily because President Abraham Lincoln and northern leaders viewed secession as an illegal act of rebellion that would destroy the United States.

This view is incorrect. The States were granted independent status at the conclusion of the war with Britain and in their sovereign capacity established the super-state compact. Other States joined this super-state compact and that did not destroy the USA.

Finally, like the war for independence, King George remained on the throne of England. Had Lincoln allowed the States to secede peacefully, he would have remained President of the USA, albeit with fewer States as members.

Regarding the claim of legality, that is only within the framework of the union the States voluntarily joined, such laws do not pertain to acts of Sovereign States acting in their sovereign capacity. The power of YES is the power of NO. Texas seceded from Mexico and then in their sovereign capacity chose to become a member of the USA. Why did Texas have the right to secede from Mexico but not the USA?

 

[Always]

This view is incorrect. The States were granted independent status at the conclusion of the war with Britain and in their sovereign capacity established the super-state compact. Other States joined this super-state compact and that did not destroy the USA.

Finally, like the war for independence, King George remained on the throne of England. Had Lincoln allowed the States to secede peacefully, he would have remained President of the USA, albeit with fewer States as members.

Regarding the claim of legality, that is only within the framework of the union the States voluntarily joined, such laws do not pertain to acts of Sovereign States acting in their sovereign capacity. The power of YES is the power of NO. Texas seceded from Mexico and then in their sovereign capacity chose to become a member of the USA. Why did Texas have the right to secede from Mexico but not the USA?

That's debatable, however the US states are not fully sovereign nations in the international sense. What they were given was a limited form of self-government and local power under the U.S. Constitution, ultimate national and international sovereignty belongs exclusively to the federal government.

Texas was annexed into the United States in 1845. Now this is what gets me, shouldn't they had followed the law...and if not, their actions be viewed as rebellion? I would think Lincoln and any other leader in his position, would think to put a stop to that.

 

[Wrangler]

What they were given was a limited form of self-government and local power under the U.S. Constitution

Wrong. The States created the Constitution, not the other way around. And it states that all States are equal, meaning States added after the founding have equal recognition as the Creating States.

 

[PS95]

No, and I don't know how you got that out of that statement?

Somehow I managed it. could be the South will rise again- combined with how many times I and others have been accused of being racist against the brown people for saying we should have secured borders always.

It seemed also that you were saying that the war wasn't really to free the slaves- there may have been other intentions not to collapse the nation- Of course we would not want that!~~~ but my gg grandfather was a Yankee soldier and he wanted the slaves freed- we have his letters. We never know what is in the heart of another.

 

[Ziggy]

I know one thing.
I'm watching some Senate Foreign Affairs for "media" nominees and was passed today I think 121 positions en bloc.
And I'm really getting tired of everyone being concerned about the Taxpayers dollars.
Not Citizens. Just your taxes.
And something about people today, some like human AI. transformers. Somewhat sterile and programmed in their replies.

What happens when there are no more Taxpayers Dollars?

What happens when there are no more taxpayers?

So Tuesday the hospice company that provides care like a nurse and cna, that come by 2 - times a week for about 1/2 hr visit, decided that dad isn't dying fast enough they have to discontinue the service until he takes a turn for the worse.
He is 91, had a stroke 2 years ago. He doesn't walk can't roll himself over, can barely feed himself.
And I take care of him 24/7/365.
I don't know how to flush a catheter, but I'm going to learn.
Now with that, there is a medical bed and a lift that the insurance covers for people in home hospice.
They are coming to get them tomorrow, or later today. It's Friday almost 3am.
So the other day knowing that they were coming to get the equipment I went out and bought dad a new bed.
They can't take this one away. I already have my own Hoyer to transfer him from when he first came home.

So out with the old and in with the new later today.
The pharmacy called and said they "updated" their billing policies and now dad needs to pay on his meds.
That's ok, he only takes 2. Nothing I can't keep on top of with a good diet. If you can find good food.
It's getting interesting out here folks.

World is changing fast and I'm not sure I'm liking all the changes.
But we'll get by until we don't.
I wish I was 20 years younger and in better health. And the fog brain won't go away.
I feel like I'm operation on one cylinder lol

I find the past interesting, the present rather stressful and tense, and who knows what tomorrow will bring.
I will Keep Praising the Lord and holding onto my faith whatever may come our way.

Maybe the new Birthright Citizens will be the new Taxpayers.
I don't think that's going to work out to well, but I suppose anything is possible.
Crazy Days.
Hugs

 

[Taken]

That says it all right there. The South seceded; the North waged war. Why did the South have the right to secede from England but not the North?

One was Escaping, Ruler and Land.
One had “Agreed” to Join a Union via (statehood), and their Word, “Agree-ment” to NOT, Secede.

(Similar current issue happening between Ukraine and Russia.
Ukraine granted Nation-hood, and present Leadership, Breaking the “Agreement” that established their “Nation”.)

Also, like the “chatter” of Texas being able to “Secede”…No, that was / is not a legal option.
Texas has a “clause” in their “statehood” joining, to divide into 5 separate states, but has never invoked that option.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Wrangler]

One was Escaping, Ruler and Land.
One had “Agreed” to Join a Union via (statehood), and their Word, “Agree-ment” to NOT, Secede.

Untrue. This permanent union was found in the Articles of Confederation, which the States seceded from to form the Constitution. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution deliberately lacks any language like permanent union.

Again, the power of yes is the power of no. Given the States have the power to approve the Constitution, it follows they have the power to reject it and rescind it.

This is the case with Rhode Island. George Washington did not wage war against Rhode Island. What does that tell you?

 

[Taken]

I do believe there will be a way to dissolve that "citizen" status by the under the jurisdiction clause, and proof of the parents being born citizens. We will fix it. I don't know how, there a lot smarter lawyers on Capitol Hill. I'm sure they will thin of something.
We can always Pray.
And I know God hears prayers.
Hugs

Problem…
Most modern “US lawyers” are highly schooled in “case law”…

Anyone from a common bartender to a schooled lawyer can “run” and become “elected to a US political position”…even one granted Law making authority Via such elected position.

Being “elected”, to a political position, does NOT mean they ARE “Keen, Aware, Knowledgable” of the Limits of American Governance.

They ARE elected and promise by Oath … To Protect a Citizens LIBERTY.

What has occurred for Decades IS “many of those elected”…. Have engaged in Backroom meetings for the purpose of Trading citizens LIBERTY for “favors” that which “personally enrich the elected”.
And…
Some / Many of the “elected” have “proudly” made a Decades Long Career, of such a ruse.

Whether it be “Granted” …citizenship, healthcare, education, shelter, food, etc. given to one, (which always comes at the expense of a governing compelled / forced taxpayer)…
The “giving” CAN BE Revoked / Stopped without recourse for the “receiver”, but to take care (financially) of their own.

The “taking care of one’s own…
IS … Liberty,
IS … Scriptural, (fixed objective standard and principle from God) 1 Tim 5:8

Yet there ARE presently over 450 active government Agencies, sucking citizens and foreigners into “freebies” scams, that which “taxpayers” get the financial burden and that “little clause”, the recipient can be at any time “cut off” of the receiving end.

It (scam) goes “deeper”… and why, you are now, your dads provider.

May God bless you abundantly.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Untrue. This permanent union was found in the Articles of Confederation, which the States seceded from to form the Constitution. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution deliberately lacks any language like permanent union.

Again, the power of yes is the power of no. Given the States have the power to approve the Constitution, it follows they have the power to reject it and rescind it.

This is the case with Rhode Island. George Washington did not wage war against Rhode Island. What does that tell you?

You are in error.

Colonies, individually Renounced their “Allegiance” to Great Britain and their king.

Colonies, and lands, peoples further westward, individually Agreed to Join the US Unions of statehoods, according to Statehood “Agreements”.

What are you referring to regarding Rhode Island and Geo Washington?

Rhode Island was (quite sure), the 13th (last) British Colony to denounce Allegiance to Britain and Join the Union as A US State.

 

[Taken]

Untrue. This permanent union was found in the Articles of Confederation, which the States seceded from to form the Constitution. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution deliberately lacks any language like permanent union.

The Constitution Also lacks any language for a State to Secede.
The Constitution IS the Agreement of A Land of bordered Statehood Agrees to be a Adjoined / a Part of.

Can a State “secede”?
Sure.
Legally, no.
Not Legally, because, there IS NO Constitutional “measure” / “Law” / provision, protocol, form… to secede.

Any “state”, declaring secession, would by word and writ… be declaring, their “separation From the Union”… and THUS by All means…cut off… from US…
Representation,
Say so,
Funds,
Military,
Etc.

In essence Making themselves “Foreign Lands, Governments and citizens”.

Again, the power of yes is the power of no. Given the States have the power to approve the Constitution, it follows they have the power to reject it and rescind it.

Sure.

Scripturally… the power of Yes…is to BE Sure, Before Committing.

This is the case with Rhode Island. George Washington did not wage war against Rhode Island. What does that tell you?

Tells me, Rhode Island was “discussing”, (longer than “other British Colonies”, MAKING SURE, they were WILLING to commit to a YES (agreement to Join the Union, Before Making the “Yes commitment”.)

 

[Wrangler]

The Constitution Also lacks any language for a State to Secede.

See 10A, powers reserved for the States.