<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
		>

<channel>
	<title>Family Guardian | jfenn | Activity</title>
	<link>https://famguardian.org/members/jfenn/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://famguardian.org/members/jfenn/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for jfenn.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:35:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=3.5.0</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
		
								<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">e14fbd3a5f4b65d12b5ed8ac028201a3</guid>
				<title>jfenn replied to the discussion Cases relating to citizenship and domicile in the forum 7.1.2. Domicile/Statutory citizenship</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/cases-relating-to-citizenship-and-domicile/#post-11809</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:40:24 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/cases-relating-to-citizenship-and-domicile/#post-11809"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> Cases relating to citizenship and domicile</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>I noted while reading &#8220;Why A National?&#8221; that, in the case of U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court always refers to &#8220;persons&#8221;.  Other cases cited in that document state that &#8220;persons&#8221; do not include the sovereign.  I believe this distinction is what reconciles <i>Wong Kim Ark</i> with the other 14th Amendment cases that appear to contradict this ruling.</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
		