Austria Snubs Starbucks
Jan 9th 2005, 3:25 pm
#226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
[email protected] writes:
> Having US citizen parentage (it required one or both parents). There
> were laws that conferred US citizenship to the foreign born children of US
> citizens.
Which laws, and when were they enacted? The Constitution says nothing
about it.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Having US citizen parentage (it required one or both parents). There
> were laws that conferred US citizenship to the foreign born children of US
> citizens.
Which laws, and when were they enacted? The Constitution says nothing
about it.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Jan 9th 2005, 3:26 pm
#227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
[email protected] writes:
> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship law
> passed by the first US Congress stating:
How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
Constitution that created Congress?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship law
> passed by the first US Congress stating:
How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
Constitution that created Congress?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Jan 9th 2005, 3:40 pm
#228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship
>> law
>> passed by the first US Congress stating:
> How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
> Constitution that created Congress?
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
> directly.
I would have thought that "citizen" is pretty well defined in the
Constitution.
Article XIV.
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.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship
>> law
>> passed by the first US Congress stating:
> How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
> Constitution that created Congress?
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
> directly.
I would have thought that "citizen" is pretty well defined in the
Constitution.
Article XIV.
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.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Jan 9th 2005, 3:46 pm
#229
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: I'm Viennese and love Starbucks
We will be there in early March for a concert by some friends - out of
curiosity what is the restaurant? Since our time there is short, I can
not guarantee we will get there, but we do try to get to recommended
restaurants.
--
wf.
quiqueg wrote:
>
> I have a restaurant to recommend you then, though it is a Chinese one is
> probably the best on continental europe.
>
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
[email protected]
curiosity what is the restaurant? Since our time there is short, I can
not guarantee we will get there, but we do try to get to recommended
restaurants.
--
wf.
quiqueg wrote:
>
> I have a restaurant to recommend you then, though it is a Chinese one is
> probably the best on continental europe.
>
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
[email protected]
Jan 9th 2005, 4:25 pm
#230
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: I'm Viennese and love Starbucks
The Veronelli Guide lists several places in or near Milano. Although we
have not been to Milano, the few places in that guide that we have tried
on our trips to Italy seemed good to us. Perhaps Antica Osteria del
Ponte?
--
wf.
quiqueg wrote:
>
> (btw... you know that to find more than decent places to eat in that
> artificial disneyland-like city Milan has become is a hopeless struggle,
> don't you ?) Everybody I know goes out of town...
>
have not been to Milano, the few places in that guide that we have tried
on our trips to Italy seemed good to us. Perhaps Antica Osteria del
Ponte?
--
wf.
quiqueg wrote:
>
> (btw... you know that to find more than decent places to eat in that
> artificial disneyland-like city Milan has become is a hopeless struggle,
> don't you ?) Everybody I know goes out of town...
>
Jan 9th 2005, 5:52 pm
#231
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: I'm Viennese and love Starbucks
On 9 Jan 2005 18:02:13 GMT, quiqueg <[email protected]> wrote:
>(btw... you know that to find more than decent places to eat in that
>artificial disneyland-like city Milan has become is a hopeless struggle,
>don't you ?) Everybody I know goes out of town...
Yes, sadly I do know that. The bars and restaurants here are expensive
and lousy!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
>(btw... you know that to find more than decent places to eat in that
>artificial disneyland-like city Milan has become is a hopeless struggle,
>don't you ?) Everybody I know goes out of town...
Yes, sadly I do know that. The bars and restaurants here are expensive
and lousy!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Jan 9th 2005, 8:51 pm
#232
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:24:30 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> Read the constitution.
>I did. I don't see any definition of citizenship.
Read this group for enlightenment.
--
Martin
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> Read the constitution.
>I did. I don't see any definition of citizenship.
Read this group for enlightenment.
--
Martin
Jan 9th 2005, 8:52 pm
#233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:26:49 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship law
>> passed by the first US Congress stating:
>How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
>Constitution that created Congress?
Isn't it a bit late to ask?
--
Martin
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship law
>> passed by the first US Congress stating:
>How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
>Constitution that created Congress?
Isn't it a bit late to ask?
--
Martin
Jan 9th 2005, 8:53 pm
#234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: I'm Viennese and love Starbucks
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:52:40 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>On 9 Jan 2005 18:02:13 GMT, quiqueg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>(btw... you know that to find more than decent places to eat in that
>>artificial disneyland-like city Milan has become is a hopeless struggle,
>>don't you ?) Everybody I know goes out of town...
>Yes, sadly I do know that. The bars and restaurants here are expensive
>and lousy!
That was my conclusion too.
--
Martin
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>On 9 Jan 2005 18:02:13 GMT, quiqueg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>(btw... you know that to find more than decent places to eat in that
>>artificial disneyland-like city Milan has become is a hopeless struggle,
>>don't you ?) Everybody I know goes out of town...
>Yes, sadly I do know that. The bars and restaurants here are expensive
>and lousy!
That was my conclusion too.
--
Martin
Jan 10th 2005, 12:14 am
#235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship law
>> passed by the first US Congress stating:
> How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
> Constitution that created Congress?
How could that question help anyone's understanding of anything (particularly
anything related to this discussion)?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
> [email protected] writes:
>> Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship law
>> passed by the first US Congress stating:
> How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
> Constitution that created Congress?
How could that question help anyone's understanding of anything (particularly
anything related to this discussion)?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Jan 10th 2005, 12:35 am
#236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
> My mistake. More specifically, the intent was to prevent someone
> potentially loyal to England (or possibly some other country) from
> becoming President (not a perfect method, but just a precaution).
The
> country was new and the question of loyalties was a serious and valid
> one.
Yes. They needed to the maintain the stability of the US and
wanted to make sure that someone wouldn't come in to
sabotage the government. It was a good law to have at the time.
> > 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 ...
> Which means that, except for a brief period during which people who
were
> already naturalized at the time of the Constitution's adoption were
> still alive, only native-born Americans can become President.
The clause about a person who was alive at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution was necessary because, when the US was founded,
nobody was born with US citizenship.
> Today,
> only native-born Americans can become President, as nobody remains
alive
> who was already naturalized at the time the Constitution was adopted.
It doesn't say native born, it says natural born. It's just that
"natural born" is not
defined in the US Constitution. The debate would be whether
a person born outside the US, who received citizenship through US
citizen parents, is a "natural born" citizen, or not.
Nationality laws defined by the first US Congress stated that a child
born
outside the US to US citizens would be US citizens and would be
considered
to be "natural born" citizens as long as the father had resided in the
US at any
time. This give good evidence that the framers of the Constitution
held the
opinion that a "natural born" citizen is one who received his
citizenship other
than by naturalization.
Stephen Gallagher
> potentially loyal to England (or possibly some other country) from
> becoming President (not a perfect method, but just a precaution).
The
> country was new and the question of loyalties was a serious and valid
> one.
Yes. They needed to the maintain the stability of the US and
wanted to make sure that someone wouldn't come in to
sabotage the government. It was a good law to have at the time.
> > 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 ...
> Which means that, except for a brief period during which people who
were
> already naturalized at the time of the Constitution's adoption were
> still alive, only native-born Americans can become President.
The clause about a person who was alive at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution was necessary because, when the US was founded,
nobody was born with US citizenship.
> Today,
> only native-born Americans can become President, as nobody remains
alive
> who was already naturalized at the time the Constitution was adopted.
It doesn't say native born, it says natural born. It's just that
"natural born" is not
defined in the US Constitution. The debate would be whether
a person born outside the US, who received citizenship through US
citizen parents, is a "natural born" citizen, or not.
Nationality laws defined by the first US Congress stated that a child
born
outside the US to US citizens would be US citizens and would be
considered
to be "natural born" citizens as long as the father had resided in the
US at any
time. This give good evidence that the framers of the Constitution
held the
opinion that a "natural born" citizen is one who received his
citizenship other
than by naturalization.
Stephen Gallagher
Jan 10th 2005, 12:47 am
#237
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
> > Birth abroad with US citizen parentage. There was a citizenship
law
> > passed by the first US Congress stating:
> How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
> Constitution that created Congress?
How are you discerning that the first US Congress existed before the
adoption of the Constitution?
The first US Congress would have been the first Congress elected
after the adoption of the Constitution. Just as the Congress that
will begin sitting this month is the 109th US Congress.
law
> > passed by the first US Congress stating:
> How could the first US Congress pass a law _before_ adoption of the
> Constitution that created Congress?
How are you discerning that the first US Congress existed before the
adoption of the Constitution?
The first US Congress would have been the first Congress elected
after the adoption of the Constitution. Just as the Congress that
will begin sitting this month is the 109th US Congress.
Jan 10th 2005, 12:55 am
#238
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
> I would have thought that "citizen" is pretty well defined in the
> Constitution.
"Citizen" is defined, but "natural born citizen" is only referred to
once in the Constitution (in the presidential requirements).
That's where the debate arises over whether a US citizen by
descent is "natural born" or not.
Ultimately, the only way it would be officially determined is if
the Supreme Court made a ruling. They can't do that unless
a person's eligibility is challenged and the case made its way up the
judicial system.
Stephen Gallagher
> Constitution.
"Citizen" is defined, but "natural born citizen" is only referred to
once in the Constitution (in the presidential requirements).
That's where the debate arises over whether a US citizen by
descent is "natural born" or not.
Ultimately, the only way it would be officially determined is if
the Supreme Court made a ruling. They can't do that unless
a person's eligibility is challenged and the case made its way up the
judicial system.
Stephen Gallagher
Jan 10th 2005, 5:07 am
#239
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
nitram writes:
> Read this group for enlightenment.
This group does not have the force of law.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Read this group for enlightenment.
This group does not have the force of law.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Jan 10th 2005, 5:08 am
#240
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Austria Snubs Starbucks
James Silverton writes:
> Article XIV.
> 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.
Where does it say anything about children born to parents who are
citizens?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Article XIV.
> 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.
Where does it say anything about children born to parents who are
citizens?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
