Posted on 06/24/2011 6:25:19 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
In a February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:
“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.“
The first “shots” of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.
There is now a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the American people.
Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents.
The present occupiers of the US Government openly violate the Constitution, are hopelessly corrupt and politically correct, have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society.
They can no longer be trusted as guardians of our posterity.
Not a week goes by without yet another document analyst claiming that his Certificate of Live Birth presented by Obama at his press conference on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
test=text
Ron, you should know by now that I don't lie, I don't make stuff up, and I don't make a statement without having a basis for it.
Have you even read United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
I have. All 20,000 words of it.
And here's some of what it says:
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Mr. Justice Story... in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834... said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, "there are certain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law"... "as of unquestionable authority," and stated, as the first of those principles, "Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country."
It may be observed that, throughout [the English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700)], persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."
"if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm," and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law...
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."
19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Note that the above specifically states that all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. This strongly supports the idea that children born US citizens of US parents abroad are "natural-born citizens," and are therefore qualified, upon meeting the other qualifications, to serve as President of the United States.
However, we really don't even need that statement, as Minor v. Happersett (1875) explicitly states that "Congress... provided... that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens."
Did the Court in Minor v. Happersett understand the Presidential implications of that pronouncement? Clearly they did, for they also wrote in the very same ruling:
"The Constitution itself... 'provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.'"
This statement on the part of the United States Supreme Court completely invalidates the doctrine that "natural born citizen" means only children born on US soil of two US citizen parents.
Minor v. Happersett was a unanimous ruling. 9 to 0. No dissent at all.
But let's continue with Wong Kim Ark:
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26. That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
It goes on and on and on. I doubt I've quoted half of it. And all of it says the exact same thing.
And you shouldn’t imagine that I’ve taken anything out of context, either.
All of the quotes above were made in order to give background for and support the ruling in Wong Kim Ark. Not a single one of those quotes was made in order to say, “This is what so-and-so says, but he’s wrong.” Not one.
Those ARE the arguments in the majority opinion of Wong Kim Ark.
You seem to delight in pointing out how GREAT & SHREWD he is, or something. Twinkie hasn’t been involved in the “birther” ranting. At all. You’re ranting. Why?
Obviously, I can't speak for amd, but I can tell you what I've personally observed, over the past few months.
There have been quite a few people really eager to accept whatever proof anybody advances as to Obama's ineligibility.
Well, that's quite understandable. Obama's not exactly popular around here, for a long list of good reasons.
But here's what has typically happened.
Someone comes forward with a flimsy or completely invalid "proof" that Obama's birth certificate is forged, or that he's ineligible to be President.
There are those among us (myself included) who respect the Constitution and the law enough not to be prepared to hang a man, even if he's a well-known, indisputable, low-down, no-good, dirty, rotten, lying scoundrel - until and unless we have the proper evidence that he's committed a crime worthy of hanging.
So we point out: "Um, actually, what you've got there does NOT prove what you're claiming it proves, and here's why," and then proceed to show exactly why the particular piece of evidence is just weak or totally invalid, and therefore not at all a good basis for administering justice.
At that point, typically, the committed birther mob sets upon us with whips, chains, and the occasional rotten tomato, and we have to defend ourselves from a chorus of false accusations. "You're lying." "You're a troll." "You're an Obamabot." And the list goes on and on.
It is disappointing to me that there has been such an amount of abuse directed toward those of us who care more about truth and the law than about declaring Mr. Obama guilty of a major crime (illegitimacy to the Presidency) in spite of the evidence. The man may be a scoundrel, a swindler, and a card sharp (and I say he is), but in spite of numerous accusations by an understandably enraged citizenry, no one has yet brought forward any convincing evidence that he's a horse thief.
I had previously thought that our town had only the finest of citizens, and in fact I have no doubt that the vast majority of them are 100% decent and fair minded individuals. The salt of the earth, mind you. But there are a few - a tiny minority, but an unpleasantly loud one - who are evidently prepared to take the law into their own hands.
After a few months of this, you get kind of tired of dealing with the rabble-rousers, and perhaps a mite testy. And it may get a bit harder to distinguish good citizens such as yourself who are newcomers in the hall from some of the rabble-rousing bunch that's been here, that like to shoot first and ask questions later.
And even though we've been through reams of accusations without finding any evidence to convict the man of horse thievery (the swindling and general scoundrelry, as I say, is a different matter), the obvious desire to hang someone - if not Obama, then some random member of the court - seems to just go on.
So while I obviously can't speak for allmendream, it appears from where I'm sitting that he's decided that it's time for the birther crowd to "eat crow and like it."
allmendream, would you say that's a fair assessment? He (Obama) does not conduct himself trustworthy, so people were not amiss in not trusting him.
I don't think that's in dispute.
Bringing out the BC from the first would have been transparent, and an honest person would have not been clearly tweaking noses just for the fun of it.
Heh. If you want transparency, I'd stay out of the Obama Saloon. The whiskey in that place is muddier than the Pecos.
His games will end one day, God willing.
I have in mind to ride the rascal out of town on a rail about November of 2012. Are you in?
It's a "gothcha", "I punked you" or "I'm smarter than you if you don't catch it" statement that Jeff shouldn't make any more if he wants to be considered forthright.
I guess he considers it "good form" for catching so much flak.
Would you say my statement is correct, Jeff?
And wasn't Ark a naturalization case, Jeff?
In case you hadn't noticed, philman, Supreme Court cases are nuanced as hell. The law is nuanced as hell.
Even a naturalized citizen is considered as, or equal to natural-born citizens in the legal sense as you know.
Sorry, philman, but your statement is simply incorrect.
IF a naturalized citizen is considered as, or EQUAL TO a natual-born citizen, as you claim, then a naturalized citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States.
A naturalized citizen therefore is NOT equal to a natural-born citizen. There is a distinct difference in the legal rights of the two classes of individual.
And personally, I really don't see any way that "considered as" doesn't mean "equal to."
If you "consider" one thing "as" another thing, that means you consider the first thing to be equal to the second.
You can dispute that, and I'm sure you will - but consider this.
It is obvious that a LOT of people, such as myself, would take that understanding.
That being the case, can you please explain to me WHY, IF the definition of NBC is as you claim, WHY do we have NOWHERE in any of the Supreme Court cases on this issue a qualifying statement that there exists a class of citizens who are LIKE natural born citizens but who ARE NOT natural born citizens?
It simply doesn't appear.
And wasn’t Ark a naturalization case, Jeff?
You know and I know that the Ark case is not explicit on that point.
At this point, it is therefore a matter of opinion.
And an obvious problem with your opinion is that you have to start parsing what the definition of "is" is, in order to keep on believing it.
Or, to be more accurate, you have to claim that "considered as" means something other than its plain meaning.
And you also have to explain why nobody in history ever bothered to clarify that it doesn't actually mean what it obviously does mean.
You also have to deal not with one, but with NUMEROUS passages like the following:
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
In order to deal with that one, you have to make the claim that a citizen at the time of birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen, even though no one has ever produced a statement in any of these detailed rulings claiming any difference whatsoever between the terms, "natural born citizen," "citizen at birth," and "native-born citizen."
Indeed, they are all used in paragraph that follows like paragraph, with no distinction whatsoever, just as if they mean the exact same thing.
What's your explanation for that?
I granted you a point the other day, that you had produced good evidence of some people, from the late 1800s and early 1900s, who believed at that time the definition you claim.
However, the paragraph above largely invalidates your point.
I granted you the valid point you made. Are you now prepared to grant me this one?
Come on out into the light and directly address my question at 451, Jeff, instead of taking it to mail.
I already answered your question.
Post #450 IS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
As already noted:
You know and I know that the Ark case is not explicit on that point.
At this point, it is therefore a matter of opinion.
And an obvious problem with your opinion is that you have to start parsing what the definition of "is" is, in order to keep on believing it.
And posting private freepmails will only publicly confirm the opinion that has recently begun to dawn on me of the kind of person you are. The threat alone is revealing enough.
Yes, it does.
The Ark case does not explicitly state whether it is a case of naturalization or natural born citizenship.
It is therefore an OPINION as to which it is.
You have your opinion, and I have mine.
I have stated why your opinion requires parsing words extremely carefully in order to avoid falling off of your semantic tightrope.
In fact, at this point, I have come to believe that your OPINION is well-nigh insupportable.
I am about to post exactly WHY this is in another thread. I will post it here also.
Quoting Wong Kim Ark:
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
In order to deal with that one, you have to make the claim that a citizen at the time of birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen, even though no one has ever produced a single statement in any of these detailed rulings claiming any difference whatsoever between the terms, "natural born citizen," "citizen at birth," and "native-born citizen."
Indeed, they are all used in paragraph that follows like paragraph, with no distinction whatsoever, just as if they mean the exact same thing.
What's your explanation for that?
If they mean different things, then WHY did the Supreme Court Justices NEVER state that there was any distinction or difference in the terms, and WHY did they use them INTERCHANGEABLY AND AT RANDOM in succeeding paragraphs, just as if they meant exactly the same thing?
Come on, you can say it.
Besides, don't you already know that it was? 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Well, I've got a pic for you...
Why can't you simply answer the question in the affirmative or negative?
The question is not difficult to answer.
His picture is stored at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE, because that's the EXACT branch of the United States government that detained him, photographed him, and accused him of NOT being a citizen.
Where else WOULD it be stored?
I've answered BOTH of your questions.
Now YOU answer MINE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.