Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ?

[Monk-Eye]

" Which Perspective Is More Valid "

* Abdication Preface Prior Establishing A State Of Greater Individuals *

We have Constitutions which recognize them and provide recourse. An advantage for political animals.

Thus , that rights ( sic ) , wrights , are alienable is ceded .


* Nature Law Of Natural Law Arguments *

Prior to entering into a social civil agreement , one is subject to natural freedoms , and to improve ones quality of life and survive ability , each options to exchange natural freedoms for protected wrights to become a citizen member of a greater individual , by a state founded upon individual consent for agreements within a social civil contract encompassed within a constitution .


* Selling Implications Of More Valid Contractual Stipulations *

Given the concepts of legal positivism , the concepts of perspectivism directly follow .

Perspectivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Perspectivism (also perspectivalism; German: Perspektivismus) is the view that perception, experience, and reason change according to the viewer's relative perspective and interpretation. It rejects the idea of "one unchanging and essential world accessible to neutral representation by a disembodied subject."[1]

There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid. G. W. Leibniz integrated this view into his philosophy, but Friedrich Nietzsche[2] fully developed it.[3][4]

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence developed largely by legal philosophers during the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism provided the theoretical basis for such developments to occur. The most prominent legal positivist writer in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who, in 1958, found common usages of "positivism" as applied to law to include the contentions that:

• laws are commands of human beings;
• there is not any necessary relation between law and morality, that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be;
• analysis (or study of the meaning) of legal concepts is worthwhile and is to be distinguished from history or sociology of law, as well as from criticism or appraisal of law, for example with regard to its moral value or to its social aims or functions;
• a legal system is a closed, logical system in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social considerations;
• moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof ("noncognitivism" in ethics).[1]

Historically, legal positivism is in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pie In The Sky Philosophy "

* What Ever Magnanimous Projection *

Only in the truer Animal Kingdom does might make right.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The anthropic principle is the philosophical premise that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, for it to be observable at all, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of conscious and sapient life that observes it.[1] In other words, scientific observation of the universe would not even be possible if the laws of the universe had been incompatible with the development of sentient life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not be around to make observations in the first place. As a result, outside the narrow range thought to be compatible with life it would seem impossible that life (in particular, intelligent life) could develop.[2]


* Zero Contingency With Necessity For Implementation Seeks Existential Projection *

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Natural rights and legal rights are the two basic types of rights.[1]

• Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
• Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).The concept of positive law is related to the concept of legal rights.

Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy,[2] and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible,[3] and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Ensuring Propositions Are Understood "

* Clarification Of Idiom Intent *

" Which Perspective Is More Valid "

* Abdication Preface Prior Establishing A State Of Greater Individuals *

Thus , that rights ( sic ) , wrights , are alienable is ceded .

Upon review , the obvious nature for the intent of the previous phrase is ambiguous , intending to mean that an argument for inalienable rights ( sic ) , wrights , is ceded to an argument that rights ( sic ) , wrights , can be alienated .

That is , rights ( sic ) , wrights , can be alienated is sustained , while , that rights ( sic ) , wrights , are inalienable is ceded .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Articulated Distinctions "

* Content Added On *

" Legitimate Terms And Rules To Be Enforced "

* Justified And Valid *

A subject of a title in a legal immigration system includes an acceptance of jurisdiction for the sojourner by the visiting country , else the sojourner remains a subject of jurisdiction from the country of national origin .

The us v wka court was correct in its decision but failed to expound that wong became a subject of title in us legal immigration system upon agreement with china to allow wong entrance to remain in the us unless or until returning to china .

The notion of non jurisdiction for diplomats is dependent upon the agreement between countries where the sojourner might include immunity from prosecution , or specify that children born of the sojourner be given jus sanguinin citizenship , which the us should stipulate in its visa program to include all legal migrants as well .

The reasoning for awarding children jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of origin for non jurisdiction sojourners and for jurisdiction sojourners as well is that there is a fundamental difference between negative liberties of protection arising from either negative or positive wrights , versus positive liberties of endowment arising from positive wrights , where an extension of citizenship is an endowment , as is social welfare , and not a protection .

The us makes significant efforts to curb birth tourism by denying visibly pregnant women entry into the us , and us legal immigration stipulates and challenges that a legal migrant , a jurisdiction sojourner , is not visiting with an intended purpose of having a child , because us citizens are obligated and privileged through its legal immigration system to determine the competence and fitness of those admitted as citizens .

Such fates are not to be determined by non jurisdiction sojourners practicing vagrancy to usurp us solvency .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[9]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[10]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the US Supreme Court ruling that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[6]