View Single Post
 
Old 09-21-2015, 03:40 PM
frisco kid frisco kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 230
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/
__________________
 

Last edited by frisco kid; 12-28-2016 at 05:04 AM.
Reply With Quote