Research & Links for JFK and other unsolved cases

[frisco kid]

https://books.google.com/books?id=Vt...ens%2C&f=false IMP
https://www.cis.org/Report/Birthrigh...-United-States new
https://www.14thamendment.us/birthri...al_intent.html

I think the most important point is to corroborate Senator Howard's apparent intention to differentiate between three groups that were to be excluded from citizenship. The excuse came some time ago and is a must to keep the falsehood alive that anyone can come here and have children who automatically become U.S. citizens. The following sentence by Howard must be interpreted with the words foreigners and aliens applying only to foreign ministers and ambassadors.

"citizenship 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"

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The 1884 SC interpretation includes three groups for exclusion, therefore exactly matches what Jacob Howard said 18 years earlier. That anyone born here whose parents are not citizens would not become citizens by happenstance of their foreign place of birth. They are still subject to their jurisdiction, which is not the United States of America.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this
restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House
cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins
case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to
exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born
within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was
considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not
merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United
States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them
direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the
citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based
on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the
U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must
be United States citizens.


The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

ANN COULTER Fox News Anchored In Stupidity on 14th Amendment | Human Events


citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,

citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens,

citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors

citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of foreign ministers


You are dead wrong. Each sentence separated must make sense. It's already understood that a child of a foreign minister is a foreigner. It's redundant. There was no need to specify that the person born in the U.S. was a foreigner if that was the only class to be excluded from citizenship. The following is how it could've been written if your interpretation were correct: The words, who are foreigners and aliens would be excluded.

citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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"

citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, who belong to the families of foreign ministers.


What ?Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof? Really Means

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...o-perspectives

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...s-not-mandate/

[frisco kid]

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment IMP
Judge Napolitano distorts 14th Amendment on FoxNews regarding birthright Citizenship | GON Forum

https://thelawdictionary.org/jurisdiction/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/112/94

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...here-s-n926501

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthri...al_intent.html

Chief Justice TANEY, in the passage cited for the plaintiff from his opinion in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404, did not affirm or imply that either the Indian tribes, or individual members of those tribes, had the right, beyond other foreigners, to become citizens of their own will, without being naturalized by the United States. His words were: 'They' (the Indian tribes) 'may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of congress, and become citizens of a state, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.' But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;' and 'the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. This view is confirmed by the second section of the fourteenth amendment, which provides that 'representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.' Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clauses fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision of the second section for a proportionate reduction of the basis of the representation of any state in which the right to vote for presidential electors, representatives in congress, or executive or judicial officers or members of the legislature of a state, is denied, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to 'any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States,' cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation.

It is also worthy of remark that the language used, about the same time, by the very congress which framed the fourteenth amendment, in the first section of the civil rights act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.' 14 St. 27; Rev. St. § 1992. Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the fourteenth amendment, by being 'naturalized in the United States,' by or under some treaty or statute. The action of the political departments of the government, not only after the proposal of the amendment by congress to the states in June, 1866, but since the proclamation in July, 1868, of its ratification by the requisite number of states, accords with this construction. While the amendment was pending before the legislatures of the several states, treaties containing provisions for the naturalization of members of Indian tribes as citizens of the United States were made on July 4, 1866, with the Delawares, in 1867 with various tribes in Kansas, and with the Pottawatomies, and in April, 1868, with the Sioux. 14 St. 794, 796; 15 St. 513, 532, 533, 637.

The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge DEADY in the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said: 'Being born a member of 'an independent political community'—the Chinook—he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States—not born in its allegiance.' McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118, 134. And in a later case he said: 'But an Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and co-operation of the government. The fact that he has abandoned his nomadic life or tribal relations, and adopted the habits and manners of civilized people, may be a good reason why he should be made a citizen of the United States, but does not of itself make him one. To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form. The Indians in Oregon, not being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, were not born citizens thereof, and I am not aware of any law or treaty by which any of them have been made so since.' U. S. v. Osborne, 6 Sawy. 406, 409. Upon the question whether any action of a state can confer rights of citizenship on Indians of a tribe still recognized by the United States as retaining its tribal existence, we need not, and do not, express an opinion, because the state of Nebraska is not shown to have taken any action affecting the condition of this plaintiff. See Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; Fellows v. Blacksmith, 19 How. 366; U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 420; U. S. v. Joseph, 94 U. S. 614, 618. The plaintiff, not being a citizen of the United States under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, has been deprived of no right secured by the fifteenth amendment, and cannot maintain this action. Judgment affirmed.

At the adoption of the constitution there were, in many of the states, Indians, not members of any tribe, who constituted a part of the people for whose benefit the state governments were established. This is apparent from that clause of article 1, § 3, which requires, in the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes among the several states 'according to their respective numbers,' the exclusion of 'Indians not taxed.' This implies that there were, at that time, in the United States, Indians who were taxed; that is, were subject to taxation by the laws of the state of which they were residents. Indians not taxed were those who held tribal relations, and therefore were not subject to the authority of any state, and were subject only to the authority of the United States, under the power conferred upon congress in reference to Indian tribes in this country. The same provision is retained in the fourteenth amendment; for, now, as at the adoption of the constitution, Indians in the several states, who are taxed by their laws, are counted in establishing the basis of representation in congress. By the act of April 9, 1866, entitled 'An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish means for their vindication,' (14 St. 27,) it is provided that 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.' This, so far as we are aware, is the first general enactment making persons of the Indian race citizens of the United States. Numerous statutes and treaties previously provided for all the individual members of particular Indian tribes becoming, in certain contingencies, citizens of the United States. But the act of 1866 reached Indians not in tribal relations. Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race, (excluding only 'Indians not taxed,') who were born within the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power. Surely every one must admit that an Indian residing in one of the states, and subject to taxation there, became, by force alone of the act of 1866, a citizen of the United States, although he may have been, when born, a member of a tribe. The exclusion of Indians not taxed evinced a purpose to include those subject to taxation in the state of their residence. Language could not express that purpose with more distinctness than does the act of 1866. Any doubt upon the subject, in respect to persons of the Indian race residing in the United States or territories, and not members of a tribe, will be removed by an examination of the debates, in which many distinguished statesmen and lawyers participated in the senate of the United States when the act of 1866 was under consideration.

Prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, numerous statutes were passed with reference to particular

[frisco kid]

A restrictive clause is a clause which limits a subject; this might be something identifying, such as the colour of a person’s hair, or the position of a book on a table. A restrictive clause may use the word that, and cannot be removed from the sentence without loss of information.

The box of apples, that has the red label on it, can be used to make the pie.

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.

The restrictive clause that has the red label on it should not have a comma on either side of it. The label is required to identify the box.

Three years ago, the house, on the corner, was torn down.

The plants, that are wilting, need more water.




A non-restrictive clause is a clause which may offer more information, but doesn’t limit the subject; this might be something of interest, such as how old something is or a job a person has. A non-restrictive clause may use the word which and can be removed from the sentence without loss of understanding.

Non-restrictive clauses are generally separated from the rest of the sentence by commas (while restrictive clauses are not).

That box of apples, which I picked this morning, can be used to make the pie.

The non-restrictive clause which I picked this morning needs to have a comma on either side of it because this information is not required to identify the box; that is the word which identifies the box (we can assume the speaker is pointing to it).

Three years ago, the house on the corner, which was of historical interest, was torn down.

As the house is already identified as the one on the corner, the fact that it was of historical interest is not necessary.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/

The most common relative pronouns are who/whom, whoever/whomever, whose, that, and which. (Please note that in certain situations, "what," "when," and "where" can function as relative pronouns.) Relative pronouns introduce relative clauses, which are a type of dependent clause. Relative clauses modify a word, phrase, or idea in the main clause. The word, phrase, or idea modified is called the antecedent. In the following examples, that and whom modify the subject:

The house that Jack built is large.

The professor, whom I respect, recently received tenure.

"That" vs. "Who" and "Which" https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/

The relative pronoun that can only be used in restrictive clauses. It can also be substituted for who (referring to persons) or which (referring to things) in informal English. Whereas that is often used while speaking, who and which are more common in formal written English.


Conversational, Informal: William Kellogg was the man that lived in the late nineteenth century and had some weird ideas about raising children.

Written, Formal: William Kellogg was the man who lived in the late nineteenth century and had some weird ideas about raising children.

Conversational, Informal: The café that sells the best coffee in town has recently been closed.

Written, Formal: The café, which sells the best coffee in town, has recently been closed.

However, when speaking about a particular person in formal language, who is preferred:

The old lady who lives next door is a teacher.

The girl who wore a red dress attracted everybody's attention at the party.

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.

1. Relative pronouns introduce subordinate clauses functioning as adjectives.

The man who robbed us was never caught.
The arrow that has left the bow never returns.

In addition to introducing the clause, the relative pronoun, in this case
who, points back to a noun or pronoun that the clause modifies (man). In the second sentence, that points back to arrow.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/ca...structure.html

Grammar Bytes! :: The Subject Complement

Grammar Bytes! :: The Direct Object

[frisco kid]

Grammar Bytes! :: The Subordinate Clause

Relative Clauses - The Writing Center

Non-restrictive Relative Clauses

This type of relative clause merely provides extra information. This information may be quite interesting and important to the larger conversation, but it is not essential for precise identification of the noun. “That” cannot be used as a relative pronoun in a non-restrictive relative clause. Commas are always used at the beginning and end of this type of relative clause.

A non-restrictive relative clause can modify a single noun, a noun phrase, or an entire proposition.

My mother is thinking of opening a restaurant. My mother is an excellent cook.

“My mother” is already a clearly defined noun, so the second sentence becomes a non-restrictive relative clause set off by commas on both sides.

My mother, who is an excellent cook, is thinking of opening a restaurant.

Restrictive Relative Clauses

Restrictive relative clauses give information that defines the noun—information that’s necessary for complete identification of the noun. Use “that” or “which” for non-human nouns; use “that” or “who” for human nouns. Do not use commas.

I like the paintings. (Which paintings? We can’t clearly identify them without the relative clause.)

So we add the clause:

The paintings hang in the SASB North lobby.

I like the paintings that hang in the SASB North lobby.

Defining and non-defining Relative clauses - that, which

Tip:

Note that nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses must be introduced by the appropriate relative pronoun.

In correct usage that is always used to indicate restrictive clauses and which to indicate nonrestrictive ones.

Restrictive clauses should NEVER be set off with commas and nonrestrictive clauses ALWAYS should.


These are comments by someone who wishes to distort the English language with obvious falsehoods and propaganda.

What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about "Birthright Citizenship"? - Online Library of Law & Liberty

The author here completely misquotes Senator Howard. According to Pullman, Senator Howard said the following: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…..”

The author of the article emphasized that 'or' was needed. I pointed out that it wasn't necessary because it was spoken and transcribed as a series of four: foreigners, aliens, ambassadors or foreign ministers.

However, the conjunction “or,” which Pullman places in brackets, never appeared in the original text. I’m sure he inserted the [or[ for the purpose of clarification, but by inserting the conjunction, Pullman unwittingly changes the grammar–and hence the meaning–of the sentence.

According to the original, unedited (AHEM) text, the phrase “foreigners and aliens” does not mean all foreigners and aliens, but only those “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.” Otherwise, the word “who” would be preceded by a conjunction such as “or” (which Pullman helpfully added to aid his case). Grammatically speaking, the absence of a conjunction in the unedited text demonstrates that the phrase “who belong to the families of ambassadors…” is an appositive phrase, which means that it modifies the preceding phrase “foreigners and aliens.”

This is nonsense. Appositives do not contain verbs. They are both relative clauses, the second being non-restrictive.

Here’s an example of a sentence that is parallel to the original (unedited) sentence by Howard: “Children, who are smart, who are good at sports, do well in life.” Like the original quote of Howard, this sentence contains two consecutive “who” clauses without any intervening conjunction. The absence of a conjunction means that the phrase “who are good at sports” is referring to the same children “who are smart.” If you wanted to refer to an additional or different set of children, you would need a conjunction, in addition to some other indication that you are referring to an additional set of children. E.g., “Children who are smart and children who are good at sports do well in life.”

This appears to be an example of stacking two non-restrictives, which is incorrect. It would read something like this; "Children, who are smart, and good at sports, should do well in life."

who are foreigners, aliens, & who belong to the families of, are identifying the subject and predicate: persons born in the United States.

Additionally, this interpretation is consistent with the phrase that follows, which is extremely broad: “but will include every other class of persons.” It would not make sense to include such a broad phrase if all foreigners and aliens were excluded. In other words, “under the jurisdiction thereof” is meant to be a narrow exception to the rule that all persons born in the US are US citizens, but under their interpretation, the exception swallows the rule. In short, Howard’s statement is clearly referring to the so-called “diplomatic exception.”

Adding the conjunction still requires a comma after aliens, in order to set off the non-restrictive clause. The word THAT (Belong) is needed to remove the comma to make it one restrictive clause.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or 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.

Birthright Citizenship read

Tenth Amendment Center Blog | Does the 14th Amendment Grant Citizenship to Children of Foreigners?
http://savingamericasfreedom.com/?page_id=857

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/pa...tive-noun.html

An appositive can come before or after the main noun and it can be at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence, as long as it sits beside the noun it defines. As a noun phrase, an appositive does not have a subject or predicate, and is not a complete thought.

[frisco kid]

Punctuating Restrictive And Nonrestrictive Clauses - Writer's Relief, Inc.

Subordinate Clause: Like all clauses, this clause contains at least one subject and at least one verb; however, subordinate clauses do not express a complete thought. Instead, they are dependent upon the rest of the sentence for their meaning.

2. Generally, the pronoun that should be used with restrictive clauses and which should be used with nonrestrictive clauses. The pronoun who can be used with both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.

Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Clauses | Ask The Editor | Learner's Dictionary

A restrictive clause identifies the noun or verb that precedes it and is needed to understand which person or thing is meant:

I preferred the soprano who sang last year.
The old lady who was injured in the accident is now in the hospital.

Comma Usage: Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011...s-restrictive/

https://www.butte.edu/departments/ca..._pronouns.html

Nonrestrictive: For camp the children need sturdy shoes, which are expensive.

A nonrestrictive element describes a noun or pronoun whose meaning has already been clearly defined or limited. Because it contains nonessential or parenthetical information, a nonrestrictive element is set off with commas. If you remove a nonrestrictive element from a sentence, the meaning does not change significantly. The children need sturdy shoes, and these happen to be expensive.


http://writingexplained.org/grammar-...ictive-clauses

https://zencomma.wordpress.com/2011/...ctive-clauses/

http://gtotd.blogspot.com/2007/08/se...hrases-or.html

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu...-versus-that-0

Diamonds, which are expensive, often elicit forgiveness.Alas, in Grammar Girl's world, diamonds are always expensive, so leaving out the words which are expensive doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. (Also note that the phrase is surrounded by commas. Nonrestrictive clauses are usually surrounded by, or preceded by, commas.)

Here's another example:There was an earthquake in China, which is bad news.

Would you help me define this sentence? I'm really looking for confirmation. It's a bit controversial, but you might have fun with it. These were comments from 1866 in regards to section 1 of the 14 amendment. It's a series of four groups of people.

-This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States.= Independent Clause
-who are foreigners, aliens,=Restrictive Relative Clause and the first two groups in the series.
- who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,=Non-Restrictive Relative Clause.
- but will include every other class of persons.=Dependent clause

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.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...dment_1866.gif

[frisco kid]

Restrictive Relative Clause Restrictive, Nonrestrictive Clauses - Writing Explained

A restrictive/essential clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence element that it modifies or identifies. Who are foreigners, aliens identifies the 'persons born in the United States.' In other words, without this clause or phrase the sentence as a whole would not carry the same meaning. Restrictive clauses should not be set off by commas. For example:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States WHO ARE FOREIGNERS, ALIENS,

Nonrestrictive Relative Clause

A nonrestrictive/nonessential clause is a clause that does not limit the essential meaning of the element that it modifies. This means that children of foreign diplomats is not the only class of persons excluded from auto-citizenship. In other words, if this clause or phrase were to be taken out of the sentence, the essential meaning behind the sentence would stay the same. Nonrestrictive clauses should be set off by commas in sentences. For example: Simply put, the second clause only adds extra information about the subject and (PERSONS born in the United States) predicate. It does not modify anything else in the context of this sentence.

This will not, of course, persons born in the United States, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS ACCREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES, but will include every other class of persons.

Nonrestrictive: For camp the children need sturdy shoes, which are expensive.

A nonrestrictive element describes a noun (PERSONS) or pronoun whose meaning has already been clearly defined or limited. Because it contains nonessential or parenthetical information, a nonrestrictive element is set off with commas. If you remove a nonrestrictive element from a sentence, the meaning does not change significantly. The persons not included are foreigners or aliens, and those who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers are two groups of people that fit into those categories.


Nonrestrictive Relative Clause Restrictive, Nonrestrictive Clauses - Writing Explained

A nonrestrictive/nonessential clause does not limit the essential meaning of the element that it modifies. This debunks the stupidity that it could limit the meaning of foreigners/aliens. It only applies to the subject/predicate; PERSONS born in the United States. In other words, if this clause were to be taken out of the sentence, the essential meaning behind the sentence would stay the same. Nonrestrictive clauses should be set off by commas in their sentences. For example: The following non-restrictive relative clause can be taken out, without losing any meaning to the sentence; , WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS ACCREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES,. The preceding clause does not limit or change anything. It just provides some extra information about the subject.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens, but will include every other class of persons.

Restrictive Relative Clause

A restrictive/essential clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence element that it modifies or identifies. Who are foreigners, aliens identifies the 'persons born in the United States.' In other words, without this restrictive clause the sentence as a whole would not carry the same meaning. Restrictive clauses should not be set off by commas. A restrictive clause identifies the noun (PERSONS) or verb that precedes it and is needed to understand which person or thing is meant. For example:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States WHO ARE FOREIGNERS, ALIENS,


Clauses: the Essential Building-Blocks

restrictive relative clause - definition and examples

The Difference Between Restrictive Clauses and Nonrestrictive Clauses

restrictive relative clause - definition and examples

"To make this as short and brutal an explanation as possible, think of a restrictive clause as a liver: a vital organ of the sentence that cannot be removed without killing it. A nonrestrictive clause, however, is more like the appendix or tonsils of a sentence: It may be desirable to have but can be removed without dying (so long as one does so carefully)."
(Ammon Shea, Bad English: A History of Linguistic Aggravation. Perigee, 2014)


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/clauses

Relative clause

A relative clause is one connected to a main clause by a word such as which, that, whom, whose, when, where, or who:


This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or 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.


http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Syntax/TGRelC

Integrated (restrictive) relative: The relative provides information that helps identify the referent of the antecedent further.

Supplementary (appositive, non-restrictive) relative: Adds information on the antecedent that is not required to identify it.

https://english.lingolia.com/en/gram...lative-clauses


http://www.englishcorner.vacau.com/g...strrelcls.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ...ntence&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=WC...ntence&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=y1...ntence&f=false

http://faculty.deanza.edu/flemingjohn/stories/storyReader$20

1. A restrictive adjective clause contains information that is necessary to identify the noun it modifies. If a restrictive adjective clause is removed from a sentence, the meaning of the main clause changes. A restrictive adjective clause is not separated from the main clause by a comma or commas. Most adjective clauses are restrictive; all of the examples of adjective clauses above are restrictive. Here is another example:

People who can’t swim should not jump into the ocean.

2. A nonrestrictive adjective clause gives additional information about the noun it modifies but is not necessary to identify that noun. If a nonrestrictive adjective clause is removed from a sentence, the meaning of the main clause does not change. A nonrestrictive adjective clause is separated from the main clause by a comma or commas. The relative pronoun that cannot be used in nonrestrictive adjective clauses. The relative pronoun cannot be omitted from a nonrestrictive clause. Here is an example:

http://your-book-editor.com/sentence...g-2/4582453585

That / which (restrictive/nonrestrictive clauses)—A nonrestrictive clause is not essential for the reader to understand the full meaning of the word or words that it modifies. It simply adds more information, describing but not limiting (“restricting”) what it modifies. Conversely, a restrictive clause contains information that is essential for the reader to understand the full meaning of the word or words that it modifies. It limits (“restricts”) what it modifies. To keep things simple, use the relative pronoun that to begin restrictive clauses and which to begin a nonrestrictive clause. Examples:

Restrictive:

He showed me the book that arrived in the mail today. [The meaning is restricted to just one book—the one that arrived in the mail today.]

http://www.englishgrammar.org/restri...ative-clauses/

Such a relative clause which defines or identifies its antecedent (the noun phrase) is called a defining or restrictive relative clause.

Restrictive relative clauses follow immediately after the noun that they modify. They are not separated by pauses in speech or commas in writing. Note that a restrictive relative clause cannot be left out without affecting the meaning of the sentence.

http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Syn...TGRelCNonrestr

Restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses have different functions. Nonrestrictive relative clauses cannot narrow down a set of entities to a smaller set, only restrictive relative clauses do so. In the restrictive relative clause Pablo Picasso is a specified person. In contrast, the man denotes the set of all men. The set must have more than one member to be narrowed down. A singular proper noun has only one referent. Therefore, restrictive relative clauses cannot be attached to singular proper nouns. Exception: A restrictive relative clause can modify a proper noun which is used as a common noun. (e.g. The Isabel Allende who is a writer, not the one that is a politician.)

1. * Pablo Picasso who was an artist is very famous today.

2. The man who was an artist is very famous today.

3. Pablo Picasso, who was an artist, is very famous today.

[frisco kid]

Relative Clause vs. Appositive - Term Paper - Calixpreece sign-up

The Appositive: Learn About It & See How To Diagram It!

These comments were spoken and transcribed. Am I mistaken in any of my conclusions?

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.

Independent Clause: This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States.

Restrictive Relative Clause: who are foreigners, aliens,- It also begins a series of four groups: foreigners, aliens, ambassadors or foreign ministers

Non-Restrictive Relative Clause: , who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,

Subordinate Clause: , but will include every other class of persons.

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.


ELLO

A woman [who I know] got hit by a car.

•Antecedent: The expression in an upper clause that is modified by the relative clause.
In our example, the noun woman is the antecedent.

•Relativized element: The element inside the relative clause that refers to the antecedent. If there is a relative pronoun then the relativized element corresponds to the relative pronoun. We usually characterize the relativized element by its function in the relative clause.
In our example, the relativized element is the direct object of the verb know.

•Relative pronoun: The wh-word who is the relative pronoun in our example. The relative pronoun refers to the antecedent. English relative clauses need not contain a relative pronoun, as the following variant of our example shows:


A woman [I know] got hit by a car.

•Relative phrase: The phrase that contains the relative pronoun is the relative phrase. In our example this phrase consists only of the relative pronoun, but there are more complicated cases. In the following examples, the relative phrase is underlined, the relative pronoun in bold face.


A woman [whose husband I know] got hit by a car.

A woman [to whom I talked yesterday] got hit by a car.


ENGLISH-ENGLISH GRAMMAR: COMPLEX SENTENCES WITH ADJECTIVE CLAUSES

C. The Function of a Relative Pronoun

1. A relative pronoun functions as the subject of a predicate when the relative pronoun is followed by a predicate, and such a relative pronoun cannot be omitted.

2. A relative pronoun functions as the object of a predicate containing a verb without a preposition when the relative pronoun is followed by a subject with such a predicate, and such a relative pronoun can be omitted
3. A relative pronoun functions as the object of a predicate containing a verb with a preposition when the relative pronoun is followed by a subject with such a predicate, and such a relative pronoun can be omitted if the preposition is put at the end of a verb.
4. A relative pronoun functions as a possessive adjective when the relative pronoun is used to substitute a pronoun functioning as a possessive adjective.


D. The Use of a Relative Pronoun

1. The relative pronoun which is used with the noun antecedent (a) person (s) preceding it, and which functions as the subject of a predicate is 'who'. Study the following examples:

Relative Clauses

Like wh-questions, relative clauses come in two major types: (1) those that have the relative pronoun as the subject of the clause and (2) those that have the relative pronoun as something other than the subject of the clause (object or complement or object of a preposition).

In addition, relative clauses can be added to nouns in just about any part of a sentence--at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of sentences. Let's analyze the location and type of relative clause in each of the following sentences:

[frisco kid]

Restrictive Appositives

https://preciseedit.wordpress.com/20...g-appositives/



Appositive dictionary definition | appositive defined

The definition of appositive refers to two nouns or noun phrases that are together in a sentence and each one gives more information about the other.

In the sentence “I am waiting for my friend Beth” the phrase “my friend” is an appositive phrase to “Beth” and “Beth” is an appositive noun to “my friend”.

Appositive Examples - Appositive Sentences

who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors

https://www.google.com/#q=restrictiv...ves+and+commas

http://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop...s/appositives/

Appositive Phrases

An appositive phrase includes an appositive and its modifiers:
My favorite place, the English building, is located on the Quad, a grassy square in the middle of the campus.

Restrictive Appositives

A restrictive appositive is necessary to maintain the meaning of the sentence and does not require commas. Usually, a restrictive appositive is a single word closely related to the preceding word. It "restricts" or narrows the meaning of the word it modifies:
The musician Harry Connick will come to Champaign.
("Harry Connick" restricts the general term "musician.")
My sister Mary has four dogs.

Nonrestrictive Appositive

A nonrestrictive appositive may be omitted without changing the basic meaning of the sentence. A nonrestrictive appositive is separated by commas. Commas are always used when the word which the appositive modifies is a proper noun:
Harry Connick, the musician, will come to Champaign.
("Musician" offers additional information about the specific name "Harry Connick")
There are many parades for Mardi Gras, a religious festival celebrating the last day before Lent, in New Orleans, a city in Louisiana.

http://theeditorsblog.net/2012/09/17...s-need-commas/

Note: Who is not always preceded by a comma. I see commas thrown in before who in many essential phrases—if the word, phrase, or clause is needed to identify the person, that information is essential and is not separated out by commas.


It's simple English, really Barbecue

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors..."

'Persons...who are foreigners' is a complete phrase, as is the parallel 'persons... who are aliens.' Foreigners and aliens aren't really different, are they? So that would parse as 'foreigners, [in other words] aliens....'

The verb 'are' can get to 'foreigners' or 'aliens,' but cannot project past the following 'who.'

The second "who" is stranded with no subject unless it connects with the previous ones, so you get 'foreigners who belong to families of ambassadors..." and the parallel "aliens who belong to families of ambassadors..."

That passage can't possibly be read as a series, i.e. "foreigners, aliens, [or those] who belong to families of ambassadors..."

AND You have still failed to answer my question. What is the difference between a foreigner and an alien?

In any case, it's a moot point, since the actual term used in the clause, "Subject to the Jurisdiction" completely negates your interpretation of that phrase.

http://www.write.com/writing-guides/...r/appositives/

An appositive is a noun, noun phrase or pronoun that is next to a noun or pronoun to rename it. In other words, it identifies or explains it with additional information. One can consist of a short string of words or a long string. Most appositives contain modifiers, or adjectives. They differ from relative (defining/restrictive) clauses in that the string of words that provides additional information does not contain a relative pronoun. The omission of the relative pronoun can help keep your writing free of clutter. Appositives are either restrictive (essential) or non-restrictive (non-essential). Keep in mind that appositives can apply to any noun, noun phrase or pronoun within a sentence, not only to those that are the subjects of sentences.

http://www.really-learn-english.com/...positives.html

An appositive is a noun or noun phrase that follows another noun or pronoun and explains it.


http://blog.prepscholar.com/everythi...as-for-the-act

Appositive Phrases

Appositive phrases are basically the grammatical younger sibling of descriptive clauses: they serve the same purpose, describing a noun or pronoun, but they don't include a verb. Nonetheless, the basic rule for comma use is identical. If a phrase can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, it needs to be surrounded with commas. Consider the following examples. Where do you think they need commas?

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/a...ppositives.cfm

What to remember for appositives:

2. Most of the time, appositives are used as noun modifiers and contain nouns themselves, but they can also be adverbial modifiers.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/appo...-examples.html

Difference between Appositives and Parenthetical elements : GMAT Verbal Section

All appositive phrases are parenthetical elements but not all parenthetical elements are appositive. An appositive construction is a group of words (with no verb) which gives an emphasis to the immediately preceding word. On the other hand, a parenthetical element, non-essential information, can have many different forms among which the appositive phrase.


Appositives

In daily speech and writing, we are constantly renaming things. People and objects can have many names. For instance, I am Angela, but I can also be called a woman, a teacher, a daughter, or a sister. All these names can refer to me in different contexts. This is true for nearly any noun.

An appositive is a phrase, usually a noun phrase, that renames another phrase or noun. A noun phrase is a group of words taking the job of a noun in a sentence. Noun phrases consist of the main noun and any modifiers. For example, 'yellow house', 'high school teacher', and 'the large dog' are all noun phrases. Here is an example of a sentence using a one word appositive to rename another noun.
•My best friend, Sammy, lives in Cleveland.

The word Sammy is the appositive in that sentence as it renames the noun phrase 'my best friend'. Appositives can also come in the form of phrases. Here are two more examples of sentences using an appositive phrase.
•My childhood home, a yellow and blue house, is just down the road.
•His fish, Gill and Phineas, need to be fed once a day.

The two appositive phrases are 'a yellow and blue house' and 'Gill and Phineas'.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...jiY/edit?hl=en


WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NOUN CLAUSE, AN APPOSITIVE, AND AN ADJECTIVE CLAUSE?

Like a noun clause, an adjective clause may begin with who, that, which. But unlike a noun clause, an adjective clause cannot be replaced by a noun and still make sense.

•Noun Clause: Whoever ate my sandwich is crazy. (“Whoever ate my sandwich” can be substituted for the noun, “Bob.” Bob is crazy. )

•Adjective Clause: The man who ate my sandwich is crazy. (“Who ate my sandwich” modifies “the man.”

Like an appositive, which is a noun or noun phrase, an adjective clause provides more information about a noun. In fact, we may think of an appositive as a simplified adjective clause. Consider, for example, how the following two sentences can be combined.

•Jimbo Gold is a professional magician.

•Jimbo Gold performed at my sister's birthday party.

We have the option of reducing the adjective clause in this sentence to an appositive. All that we need to do is omit the pronoun who and the verb is:
Jimbo Gold, a professional magician, performed at my sister's birthday party.
(“A professional magician” is a noun phrase that renames Jim Gold.)

Another way to combine these sentences is to turn the first sentence into an adjective clause:

Jimbo Gold, who is a professional magician, performed at my sister's birthday party.

(“Who is a professional magician” is an adjective phrase that modifies Jimbo Gold.)

The appositive a professional magician serves to identify the subject, Jimbo Gold. Reducing an adjective clause to an appositive is one way to cut the clutter in our writing. However, not all adjective clauses can be shortened to appositives in this fashion--only those that contain a form of the verb to be (is, are, was, were).

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.

http://www.gcisd-k12.org/Page/19552

Think of appositives as subjects. There is no action because there is no verb. You only have a descriptive noun.

To write appositives, target nouns in your sentences that need (or could use) further description or explanation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/214993329/...Clauses#scribd

[frisco kid]

modifying clause can be either restrictive or nonrestrictive.
Grammar Handbook « Writers Workshop: Writer Resources « The Center for Writing Studies, Illinois
Restrictive Clause

A restrictive modifying clause (or essential clause) is an adjective clause that is essential to the meaning of a sentence because it limits the thing it refers to. The meaning of the sentence would change if the clause were deleted. Because restrictive clauses are essential, they are not set off by commas.

All students who do their work should pass easily.

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.

The car that I want is out of my price range.
The gas company will discontinue our service unless we pay our bills by Friday.

Nonrestrictive Clauses

A nonrestrictive modifying clause (or nonessential clause) is an adjective clause that adds extra or nonessential information to a sentence. The meaning of the sentence would not change if the clause were to be omitted. Nonrestrictive modifying clauses are usually set off by commas. The bolded parts can be left out.

Edgar Allan Poe, who wrote "The Raven," is a great American poet.
Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony until 1898, when it was ceded to the United States.

Non-restrictive example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-restrictive_clause

The officer helped the civilians, who had been shot.

Here, there is a comma before "who". Therefore, what follows is a non-restrictive clause. It changes the sentence to mean that all the civilians had been shot.[1]

A restrictive clause is never placed between punctuation. Using That and Which is All About Restrictive and Non-restrictive Clauses | Grammarly Blog

Remember: if your sentence needs it, then you’ve written a restrictive clause, and you should use that. If the clause gives a little extra, unnecessary information, then you’ve written a nonrestrictive clause, and you should use which.

SIGNUP: The Basics of Writing Complex Sentences: Using Adjective Clauses

Understanding the Complex Sentence Structure

A complex sentence has a special way in which it is created. An independent clause in a complex sentence is joined by one or more dependent clauses. A complex sentence must also always have a conjunction such as since, after, although, when, or because. A relative pronoun, such as that, which, or who, can replace a conjunction in a sentence. When a complex sentence starts with a conjunction, it is important to remember that a comma must be placed at the end of the dependent clause. A comma should not be placed before a conjunction if it appears in the middle of the sentence.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Ixjcu1xcy46iiQ


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.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, but will include every other class of persons.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens, but will include every other class of persons.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

[frisco kid]

Essential (Restictive) Adjective vs. Non-Essential (Non-Restrictive) Adjective Clause | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

USE A NON-ESSENTIAL (NON-RESTRICTIVE) ADJECTIVE CLAUSE

A subordinate clause = a group of words with a subject and a predicate, but which are dependent upon the rest of the sentence to make sense.

Non-essential = not necessary, not essential to meaning.

An adjective = a word that modifies a noun or pronoun.

A non-essential (non-restrictive) adjective clause = a group of dependent words with a subject and a predicate, modifying the noun or pronoun in the main part of the sentence by providing additional information not essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Non-essential adjective clauses require commas.

Four words serve as openers for these clauses: who, whom, whose, which. Who, whom, and whose refer to persons; which refers to animals and things. The word “that” cannot introduce a non-essential adjective clause.

Glossary of Grammatical Terms

Appositive (Noun Clause) A noun clause (or other nominal) which follows and has the same reference as its predecessor--e.g., the teacher, Mr. Scheisskopf. Can be used of any such nominal which simply redefines its predecessor, rather than adding additional information (as a relative would). Appositives may be either restrictive or non-restrictive and are usually punctuated accordingly.

An Advanced English Grammar with Exercises by Farley and Kittredge - Free Ebook

Relative Clauses y That-Clauses
Daily Grammar - Glossary of Grammar Terms - A complete list of grammar terms and definitions covered in our free grammar lessons

2.2. Non-defining/non-restrictive relative clause.

It is used to add additional information about the noun, whose identity or reference is already established.

Examples:

http://www.learning2grow.org/2011/02...nce-fragments/ Examples of the 7 Fragment Types

http://www.onestopenglish.com/gramma...152832.article

The form of non-defining relative clauses

When the relative pronoun refers back to a person and is the subject of the non-defining relative clause, who is used, e.g.:

The woman, who later died in hospital, has not yet been named.

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.

http://folk.uio.no/hhasselg/terms.html

restrictive relative clause (restriktiv/nødvendig relativsetning): a relative clause which is necessary in order to specify the referent of the noun phrase in which the relative clause is a postmodifier. In writing, there is no comma between the antecedent and a restrictive relative clause, and in speech, there is no tone unit boundary between the antecedent and the restrictive relative clause. The sister who is a doctor lives in Oslo. = of the sisters that I could possibly be referring to, I'm now talking about the one who is a doctor. Compare the non-restrictive His sister, who is a doctor, lives in Oslo. = He has one sister. She happens to be a doctor. She lives in Oslo.

SIGNUP: http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/th...ositive-clause

A relative clause includes in its internal structure the same noun that it attaches to. The relative pronoun means the same thing as the noun that the clause is attached to; the relative pronoun has a grammatical role that combines being a connector with a role in the syntax of its clause.

An appositive clause does not include the noun that it attaches to; the appositive clause is like a linking verb--or an equal sign: the idea = students can become independent learners. The connector that just connects the clause to the noun without playing any internal role in the clause.

http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/using...s-appositives/

In grammar, a clause is a grammatical structure that consists of a subject and a predicate. A dependent or subordinate clause is a clause that cannot function independently as a complete sentence but that must appear with another independent or main clause. A noun clause is a type of dependent clause that performs a nominal function.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...ce-that-459658


http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

It is obvious that Jacob Howard and others looked to Emerich Vattel for guidance in drafting the 14th amendment.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


Being an illegal alien today fits perfectly with the 14th amendment. They broke our laws, and have no allegiance to the U.S. That, by definition excludes them or any of their offspring from being a citizen. It may depend on birth, but doesn’t hinge upon it.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' "What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...tionality.html

"and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

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..."

[frisco kid]

COMMA RULE #1 – THE COMMA IN A SERIES: Use commas to separate items in a series. Major Comma Uses

What is a ”series”?

A “series” is a list of 3 or more items, the last two of which are joined by and, or, or nor.

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...dment_1866.gif

"citizenship 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."

The important things to remember about using commas in series are these:

1. A series includes 3 or more items of the same type (words or groups of words).

2. The series is connected by and, or, or nor before the last item.

3. A comma separates items in the series, including the final item preceded by and, or, or nor.

https://www.google.com/#q=COMMA+RULE...IES+four+items

Commas | Punctuation Rules

Example: My estate goes to my husband, son, daughter-in-law, and nephew.

Note: When the last comma in a series comes before and or or (after daughter-in-law in the above example), it is known as the Oxford comma. Most newspapers and magazines drop the Oxford comma in a simple series, apparently feeling it's unnecessary. However, omission of the Oxford comma can sometimes lead to misunderstandings.

Grammarly Handbook | Missing Comma In A List Grammar Rules

http://www.scribendi.com/advice/the_...rt_one.en.html

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.[1]

AMENDMENT XIV of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. http://www.14thamendment.us/amendmen...amendment.html


What is a jurisdiction? definition and meaning


https://english.lingolia.com/en/gram...lative-clauses

Subject or object?

Who, which, that can replace a subject or an object, it is easy to figure out which one they stand for:

◾If a verb comes directly after the relative pronoun, then the relative pronoun replaces a subject and must be used.

Example: the boy who is wearing glasses

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36

The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship -- not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether [p73] this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled, and if was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen were still not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

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.

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [p74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/autoi...eSInD#image=21


http://www.insanemedia.net/mike-powe...conspiracy/720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7KlH-snw5E
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1329942
http://americanfreepress.net/sandy-h...g-for-answers/
http://ameribornnews.com/2014/02/26/10291/

It's true that bloggers and other goofs added two words that were never uttered. I proclaim this as my best work as it leaves no room for debate. Exposing this simple lie renders the simple truth that the Honda Civic was registered to Rodia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZS_JQ6WXC4

The dispatcher that gives Rodia's ID said either 53 Edwards or 53 Headquarters. 7 seconds later he said, "Rodia, operator", NOT, RUN THE OPERATOR.

Sandy Hook and Christopher Rodia - Most 'Conspiracy Theorists' Can't Think | JoeQuinn.nethttp://www.politicalforum.com/other-...ppened-14.html

At 2:04 an officer with a deep voice, clearly NOT the officer that made the previous 872 YEO license plate report, says: “run the eh… operator, he’s a Florida license Connecticut as well, first name is Rodia, R-O-D-I-A, Christopher A. Date of birth is, eh…August 6th ’69.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at-iAfX45Ds


http://nyfirearms.com/forums/firearm...-shooting.html

http://www.sott.net/article/255766-T...ered-Questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at-iAfX45Ds

About 20 seconds later an officer with a deep voice says, "53 Edward, run the operator, he's a Florida license and Connecticut as well. Last name is Rodia R-O-D-I-A, Christopher ... August 6, 1969 ..." But about 5 minutes before this, this same officer with a deep voice is heard to say "33 headquarters, motor vehicle stop". The obvious conclusion being that these were two intermingled streams that someone, without an ounce of discernment (like noticing the difference between two voices), decided was evidence that Nancy Lanza's car belonged to someone else.

http://chemtrailsplanet.net/category...ooting/page/4/

[frisco kid]

UFC 202 Video: Nate Diaz vs Conor McGregor 2 extended preview - Bloody Elbow CM ND

10 Facts You Need to Know about the death of ‘Kendrick Johnson’ – TIP documents

Strangulation Injuries | 2010-08-02 | AHC Media: Continuing Medical Education Publishing

An article from 2009 examined 56 survivors of strangulation injuries with MRI (without contrast) to determine if there were findings that correlated with life-threatening potential.69 Based upon their experience with both survivors and non-survivors of strangulation, two board-certified forensic pathologists using clinical information judged that 15 victims had life-threatening injury while 41 victims did not. In all 56 victims, the most common injuries noted were subcutaneous hemorrhage and edema (55%), followed by intramuscular hemorrhage and edema (29%), intracutaneous hemorrhage (29%), and swelling of the platysma (29%). The last three findings were the best for distinguishing between victims with life-threatening and non-life-threatening injuries, but the sensitivity was low, with only 53% of these individual findings present in those with life-threatening injury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petechia

Suffocation-Smothering | Forensic Pathology Online

A closer look at strangulation cases | Texas District & County Attorneys Association great page

Visible evidence

Some of the best evidence of strangulation comes in the form of post-mortem examinations (autopsies) where the tissues of the neck and the brain can be evaluated.

Other visible injuries to look for are swelling of the neck (edema), lips, or tongue.

Petechiae, which is the rupturing of capillaries (small blood vessels near the surface of the skin) is present in a very few cases. When petechiae is lacking, defense attorneys seem to want to hang their hat on its absence as evidence that no strangulation occurred. Petechiae occurs in moments where the jugular vein (which is closest to the surface of our skin and is thus obstructed with less pressure) is blocked and prevented from sending blood down to the heart but the carotid artery (which is deeper than the jugular vein and sends blood to the head) is open. This blockage of blood causes the capillaries to burst. This is significant because for petechiae to occur, some pressure was placed on a certain part of the victim’s neck that occluded the jugular vein. In other words, petechiae is caused when only the most superficial part of the anatomy is blocked.

This is not to say that the presence of petechiae isn’t important—it certainly helps to prove strangulation in that it is evidence of impeding the blood flow of the jugular vein—but it can also support the argument that a struggle took place or that the suspect released and/or varied the pressure he used during the assault. At the same time, the absence of petechiae shouldn’t be a concern for a prosecutor. Even in cases where petechiae might be present, it is easily missed as it sometimes presents itself as a single pin-point dot on the earlobe, in the eye, on the eyelid, or behind the ear. Like many other visible injuries consistent with strangulation, it is such a small injury that it is often overlooked and can be easily covered by freckles, dark skin, make-up, or lighting.

Forensics section - Asphyxia

Positional / mechanical / traumatic asphyxia
================================================== =======================

● Definition: position of body or external pressure on chest prevent respiration

● Positional asphyxia: body is positioned in a way that restricts airflow
● Twisting or compression of neck resulting in occlusion of oropharynx or trachea
● Seen in intoxicated individuals or elderly persons who become trapped

● Mechanical / traumatic asphyxia: external compression of chest, preventing normal respiration
● Example: vehicle collapsing on individual working under car
● May have petechiae, face and upper chest congestion at autopsy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xySUUIFiT1s



http://valdostatoday.com/2014/10/ken...ted-to-public/

“Kendrick enters the gym as does this student, Student A. Student A goes into the gym first. Student A goes in and he starts walking to the back right hand corner in the gym. Kendrick comes in probably a second, second and a half behind him and goes to the back left hand corner,” Jones said.”They separate, they are not together, they never speak to each other. Nobody enters the gym after Kendrick except in a few seconds, actually…18 seconds.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Y_1H7J7AU TIME STAMP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZszauFdgtA GREAT VIDEO

http://aboutforensics.co.uk/decomposition/ Decomposition

Stages of Decomposition
Fresh (1-2 days)
This stage begins almost instantly from the moment of death. As the heart stops beating, the body’s cells are deprived of oxygen and pH changes occur. Cells gradually lose their structural integrity and begin to break down, releasing cellular enzymes which break down cells and tissues in a process known as autolysis, degraded by the body’s own enzymes. There will be no obvious signs of decomposition, however internally bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract begin to digest the soft tissues of the organs. Throughout this stage certain early post-mortem indicators may begin to occur, such as livor mortis (pooling of blood in the body), rigor mortis (stiffening of muscles) and algor mortis (body temperature reduction).

https://www.google.com/search?source...69i57.1760j0j8 MANUAL STRANGULATION 274

https://www.google.com/#q=petechiae+in+suffocation PDF UofM

https://books.google.com/books?id=6Z...adults&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=Dy...cation&f=false important

http://howmed.net/forensic/asphyxia-and-its-types/

https://www.google.com/#q=positional...nt+upside+down Positional A.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.u...ail/story.html Upside down

http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-o...-death-coroner """""

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...ation-20140514 """""

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200403.html """""

http://grantland.com/features/the-my...dosta-georgia/ Grantland

https://quizlet.com/77159711/asphyxiation-flash-cards/

https://books.google.com/books?id=K4...lation&f=false great page ms


https://www.scribd.com/doc/181050020...ent-Report-pdf

Coach Phillip Pipelow pulled down the mat and there was no mention of the body sliding out. Something like that would be included in the witness accounts. That's why the coroner was so adamant about the body being moved. In the same way, had his body been half out and held up by the surrounding mats, it would be all over these reports. The feet weren't sticking out according to Pipelow and most others.

He stated that he climbed the mats and when he reached the top, he saw feet inside. He stated that he could not move the person, so he climbed down and began to pull away the mats from the outside; trying to get to the mat the person was in. He stated that students helped him clear the mats. He stated that he reached the mat and he reached for the top of the mat pulled it from the top, down to the floor, when he noticed that the person was deceased. Mr. Pipelow became upset and was having a hard time speaking.

https://kjtheboywhodidntcomehome.wor...roner-reports/

6. Why are there two differing coroner’s reports? The Johnson family had to struggle to get any of the records they got, using repeated filings of Open Records Act requests. The coroner’s report they received from the Open Records Act requests stated how dismayed Coroner Bill Watson was by the crime scene’s compromised condition and the moved body in the January 22 report:

“I was not notified of (sic) this death until 15:45 hours. The investigative climate was very poor to worse when I arrived on the scene. The body had been noticably (sic) moved. The scene had been compromised and there was no cooperation from law enforcement at the scene. Furthermore the integrity of the evidence bag was compromised on January 13, 2013 by opening the sealed bag and exhibiting the dead body to his father…I do not approve of the manner this case was handled. Not only was the scene compromised, the body was moved.”


http://www.examiner.com/article/para...feds-listening


0:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBX9ft6z67A



It only has to do with the angle at which the plane was photographed. In order to get the same wing alignment the plane must be more to the right toward the camera. The fake wing is also angled impossibly upward and the left engine is too close to the front. It's an awful fake that will never have an explanation.

[frisco kid]

An autopsy study of death due to Suicidal Hanging – 264 cases statistics

Paper 5: Obliquity vs. Discontinuity of ligature mark in diagnosis of hanging - A comparative study by Shrabana Kumar Naik: Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine: Vol. 7, No. 1 (January - June 2006) hanging study

http://propellornz.wixsite.com/foren...urrent-edition """

Paper 5: A Case Of Strangulation Fabricated As Hanging: Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine fabricated hanging

http://www.anilaggrawal.com/ij/vol_0...per005/002.jpg """

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...22d1b25217.jpg hanging

http://suicidemethods.info/pix/suicide7.jpg Hanging

https://sheerazgul.wordpress.com/201...spe-slides-38/ Hanging

Lennon Lacy's white girlfriend believes their relationship led to his murder | Daily Mail Online

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...98e_story.html

BLADENBORO, N.C. — Teresa Edwards was driving to Bo’s Food Store when she spotted the teenager walking along the dirt road. It was getting dark. He was alone. She recognized him as Lennon Lacy, one of her son’s best friends. She stopped to ask him if he needed a ride.

“No, ma’am,” she recalls him saying, “I’m just thinking.”

https://www.change.org/p/fbi-reopen-...of-lennon-lacy petition
N.C. teen's parents: Dating white woman got son 'lynched' - NY Daily News Lacey's friend
The Best Explanation For How Lennon Lacy Hung Himself: Magic great page
17-year-old Lennon Lacy Lynched in North Carolina Good article
Why We Need To Talk About The Death Of Lennon Lacy | MadameNoire LL
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ennon-Lacy.pdf AR
Was Lennon Lacy Lynched? 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com LL
New questions in Lennon Lacy case – The Wilmington Journal Lennon Lacy

Did a white male that Lacy was in a fight with months earlier for allegedly stealing Lennon’s phone follow through with his alleged threat to “kill and hang” Lacy? That person reportedly was released from jail three weeks before Lacy’s death.

Murdered UNC Student's Final Moments: What Police Say Happened to Faith Hedgepeth - ABC News faith hedgepeth

Crime Watch Daily investigates the murder of Faith Hedgepeth | Crimewatchdaily.com """
Karena Rosario, Faith Hedgepeth’s Roommate: 5 Fast Facts | Heavy.com """
Gaspo: More from the mysterious Faith Hedgepeth recording | News & Observer """
https://gma.yahoo.com/friend-murdere...opstories.html """
http://crimewatchdaily.com/2015/08/2...ystery-at-unc/ timeline



https://www.yahoo.com/news/shots-fir...131944088.html BLM great comments

Throttling | Forensic Pathology Online

https://books.google.com/books?id=uW...lation&f=false Classic signs of MS

https://books.google.com/books?id=rM...lation&f=false Blunt trauma definitons

What differentiates manual strangulation from the other two types? https://quizlet.com/15050684/dimaio-...s-flash-cards/

There are generally marks of violence (abrasians, contusion, fingernail marks, etc.). There are also usually injuries to the internal neck (musculature hemorrhage, fracture of hyoid/thyroid in older patients, etc.).

1. Hanging
2. Ligature strangulation
3. Manual strangulation

https://www.google.com/#q=visceral+congestion Chapter 8

https://www.google.com/#q=classic+si...ation&start=20 WEBMEDIA

https://www.google.com/#q=blood+in+positional+asphyxia AN OPINION OF EXCLUSION

https://www.google.com/#q=manual+str...ptoms&start=30 Minnesota

https://books.google.com/books?id=oN...sition&f=false Decomposition

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sNHRuKcELt...sy+picture.png

https://www.google.com/search?q=kend...casket&imgrc=_ Autopsy photos

http://cdn.niketalk.com/1/12/500x100...aCQAQRPUF.jpeg Ligature marks

http://westjem.com/articles/olivier-...-asphyxia.html Recovered

https://books.google.com/books?id=Jd...phyxia&f=false Great page

https://books.google.com/books?id=B4...phyxia&f=false Petechia Important

https://kjtheboywhodidntcomehome.wor...roner-reports/ Article/info

http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journ...ardio0319.html epicardial adipose tissue



https://www.google.com/search?noj=1&...WyUC8w#imgrc=_ Beaten


All my posts on page 16 are factual and impossible to challenge. That's why you and others completely ignored them. The face being swollen was at least indirectly blamed on bloating which is false because the face was swollen less than 24 after death. That supports homicide, along with the defensive wounds and bloody shirt being ignored.


You WANT this to be an accident, and for that reason YOU have a limited point of view.

Biology and physics have not been tested.

If you really wanted to put those laws to the test, I suppose you could stuff your self in

a gym mat, see how well you fair...this is me thinking you won't because you couldn't fall in or out.

but if you're so ****ing sure...why wouldn't you?

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evi...l-podcast.html

Q. Dr. Wetli, I think you told us at your deposition that petechial hemorrhaging was found in 85 percent of the people that suffered traumatic asphyxia; is that correct?

A. No. In a study that we had done sometime earlier looking at 5,000 consecutive cases we found that 85 percent of the people who died, I believe it's from manual strangulation, had petechiae; but we did Q. Okay. Are there necessarily going to be petechial hemorrhages?
A. No. In probably 95 percent of the cases you get congestion of - you know, usually of the head and neck, and you get petechiae. But I've seen occasional cases where there have not been petechia.

[frisco kid]

Suicide Or Lynching? FBI Probes Death Of Lennon Lacy. 17-Yr-Old NC Black Teen Found Hanging From Belt & Dog Leash That Didn't Belong To Him. Grave Desecrated (Video) - ThisIs50.com lennon lacy

Motor vehicle-assisted ligature strangulation causing complete decapitation: an autopsy report. - PubMed - NCBI AR tongue bit

Autopsy: Rolesville boy, mother were strangled before house fire | WNCN kristy bryan

Soft Tissue Injury of the Neck - Health Library

CAUSES

Causes of blunt injury may include:

• "Clothesline" injuries. This happens when someone is moving at high speed and runs into a clothesline, outstretched arm, or similar object. This results in a direct injury to the front of the neck. If the airway is blocked, it can cause suffocation due to lack of oxygen (asphyxiation) or even instant death.
• High-energy trauma. This includes injuries from motor vehicle crashes, falling from a great height, or heavy objects falling onto the neck.
• Sports-related injuries. Injury to the windpipe and voice box can result from being struck by another player or being struck by an object, such as a baseball, hockey stick, or an outstretched arm.

• Strangulation. This type of injury may cause skin trauma, hoarseness of voice, or broken cartilage in the voice box or windpipe. It may also cause a serious airway problem.

SYMPTOMS

•Bruising.

• Pain and tenderness in the neck.

• Swelling of the neck and face.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kS...lation&f=false Face swelling

https://www.google.com/#q=positional...autopsy+report PA Reflection/Homicide
-Case Report Positional Asphyxia: An Opinion of...

https://www.crimescene.com/suicide/evidence.autopsy.php Ligature autopsy

https://www.google.com/#q=strangulat...eport&start=10 AR Omaha

http://www.buffalonews.com/second_au...ngulation.html Fake AR

http://aboutforensics.co.uk/forensic-pathology/ Vomit

https://www.google.com/search?noj=1&...WyUC8w#imgrc=_ Beaten

https://books.google.com/books?id=4q...images&f=false strangulation

http://www.napsa-now.org/wp-content/...012/11/102.pdf

With complete and sustained obstruction of both jugular
veins:
– 20-30 seconds causes petechiae above the point of constriction
– 2 minutes to full unconsciousness
– another 2 minutes of sustained unconsciousness until death
• With complete obstruction of the mouth and nose by
suffocation, same approximate time interval, but petechiae
become generalized throughout the body, rather than just
isolated to the head.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300444.html

A petechial hemorrhage is a tiny pinpoint red mark that is an important sign of asphyxia caused by some external means of obstructing the airways. They are sometimes also called petechiae. Their presence often indicates a death by manual strangulation, hanging, or smothering. The hemorrhages occur when blood leaks from the tiny capillaries in the eyes, which can rupture due to increased pressure on the veins in the head when the airways are obstructed. If petechial hemorrhages and facial congestion are present, it is a strong indication of asphyxia by strangulation as the cause of death.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fe...lation&f=false

https://frederickleatherman.com/2014...ohnsons-death/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/01...p-concern.html clothes

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/26/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/ken...lly-complaint/ organs

http://grantland.com/features/hagler-vs-leonard/

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...e-woods-death/ Natalie Wood
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rt-Wagner.html

Woman startled to find wolves joining her morning commute; video | GrindTV.com

https://www.yahoo.com/news/disbarred...055824912.html hoax

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/wikileaks...141815829.html wikileaks

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...g=NCSR&imgrc=_ Open casket

Benghazi hearings: Three truths not revealed during Clinton questioning | Fox News

https://kjmemorial.wordpress.com/ Witnesses

Raw Video of Kendrick Johnson at school before his death | Video | 11alive.com Entering gym
Re-NewsIt!: CNN and Victor Blackwell play EDITED video of Kendrick Johnson in Gym

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...trump-and-you/ Socialism

[frisco kid]

• Petechiae—tiny red spots due to ruptured capillaries—are a signature injury of strangulation. At times, they may only be found under the eyelids, but they may also be found around the eyes and anywhere on the face and neck, including the victim’s scalp. Petechiae can be present in a pattern easily mistaken for a rash. Blood-red eyes, the result of ruptured capillaries in the white part of the eyes, are indicative of a “particularly vigorous struggle between the victim and assailant.”3

MBBS Medicine (Humanity First): ASPHYXIAL DEATHS

https://books.google.com/books?id=AU...phyxia&f=false PA: all cases have congestion

https://books.google.com/books?id=In...lation&f=false bleeding/mouth and nose

Toddler Survives 13 Hours in Upside-Down Car in Frigid Utah River - ABC News Upside down baby

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof definitely includes every single person in the U.S. here for any amount of time. If you break the law you can and will be charged. If they come here illegally the government can and should deport you along with any children conceived within our borders or not. The anchor baby myth is nothing but nonsense made up by the courts, and has no bearing in reality as it pertains to the 14th amendment. No logical argument has ever been made for a child born to illegal aliens that anchors not only the child but the illegal alien parents. The claim is absurd on its face. The 14th amendment most certainly denies birthright citizenship to children born of foreign or alien parents. That is far more clear with modern immigration law.

There are no appositives in this sentence. There are four clauses and the first of which is an independent/main clause. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States. The three clauses that follow tell us more about who exactly the persons/children are, who aren't citizens at birth. No clause in the sentence replaces another clause. Most clauses, such as the three that follow are incomplete thoughts, therefore, need the main clause to make sense. The who clauses modify the noun persons.

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.





Guide to the Constitution

In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller's dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://americanchaos.wordpress.com/...ction-thereof/

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/...nge_/5-848891/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139082/posts

Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first compiled with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” He could only be referring to the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation.

"Birthright Citizenship": Politics v Rule of Law - Tea Party Nation

"SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION THEREOF"?

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/th...ositive-clause

http://www.grammar-monster.com/lesso...mma_or_not.htm That/who/commas

http://web.ku.edu/~edit/which.html

http://grammarpolice.livejournal.com...46.html?page=1 appositive/defining clause/join
http://forum.wordreference.com/threa...lause.2534945/

http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Syn...TGRelCNonrestr

An appositive is shorter than a relative clauses. It seems to be a derived relative clause because the wh-word and the verb be are deleted. Most appositives are derived from nonrestrictive relative clauses but there are also restrictive appositives:

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.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29...IVECLAUSE.html

http://literarydevices.net/appositive/

https://englishsentences.com/appositive-phrase/

An appositive phrase does not have a subject and predicate, therefore, it is not a complete sentence.

https://englishsentences.com/predicate/

https://www.lawliberty.org/2015/08/2...ship/#comments

https://pediaa.com/difference-betwee...ective-clause/
Appositives do not usually begin with relative pronouns or adverbs.
Adjective Clauses always begin with relative pronouns or adverbs.

https://www.tameri.com/edit/phrases.html

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/p...tive-noun.html
As a noun phrase, an appositive does not have a subject or predicate, and is not a complete thought.

https://english.tutorvista.com/grammar/appositives.html

https://english.tutorvista.com/gramm...ve-clause.html

An adjective clause, like other clauses, contains a subject and a verb but cannot stand by itself as a complete sentence. It is a subordinate clause that modifies a noun or a pronoun in the main clause and is usually connected to the word it modifies by one of the relative pronouns ( who, whose, whom, which, or that ) or relative adverbs ( when, where, or why ).
An adjective clause usually follows the word it modifies and tells what kind or which one.

https://commongroundinternational.co...describe-noun/

http://eng329ostenson.pbworks.com/w/...tive%20Clauses

An adjective clause is a dependent clause that modifies or describes a noun (person, place, or thing). Adjective clauses often begin with a relative pronoun (who, whom, which, whose, or that) or a relative adverb (when, where, why). You can tell the difference between a noun clause and an adjective clause because the adjective clause can be removed without impacting the meaning of the sentence.

https://madamgrammar.com/2010/12/13/...sitive-anyway/

Relative clauses are not the same as appositives, though they may convey the same information. Relative clauses begin with a relative pronoun and have a verb in the clause. Appositives are simple phrases, no verb.

https://parentingpatch.com/using-ver...s-appositives/