Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

From the DISSENT of WKA...that would be the LOSING side.


30 posted on 02/05/2012 7:38:01 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

Rogers, you’ve got a major problem when the dissent is the only thing that comes close to saying what you want the Wong Kim Ark decision to say. Fuller is not talking about anything in the majority opinion. He’s only speaking in historical terms, which is true. Fuller also lamented that children born abroad to citizens would NOT be citizens according to the 14th amendment because they weren’t naturalized in the United States. Nothing in the majority opinion says ANYTHING about either of these issues. We can only go by what it says, not what you want it to say.


40 posted on 02/05/2012 9:17:01 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers; edge919; philman_36; bushpilot1; Red Steel; rxsid; Spaulding; BuckeyeTexan; LucyT; ...
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” (WKA dissent)

Progressives have seized on this interpretation of the WKA majority opinion to create anchor babies. The WKA majority justices CANNOT be blamed for this, IMO. The WKA majority protected the Minor court's definition of NBC by NOT changing it and NOT applying it to WKA.

This claimed “conclusion” in the dissent was rejected and refuted by the WKA majority. The majority explicitly affirmed the Minor court's definition of NBC by leaving it untouched. The WKA majority took up the citizen rights of non-NBC children of aliens about whom there was doubt regarding their citizenship, NOT their NBC status. The WKA majority expanded citizenship rights to this subclass of non-NBC children of domiciled aliens at birth.

On its face this dissent does not correctly state the conclusion of the majority that WKA was as much a citizen as a natural born citizen, but did NOT declare WKA to BE an NBC!

The WKA dissent has ZERO value as precedent and is not even dicta.

41 posted on 02/05/2012 9:18:02 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
Oh no Rogers, the losing side is America, as a whole.

We got stuck with the Kenyan citizen drunk with power and driving us into bankruptcy and ruin.

The real losers are the American children born today that will have to pay back this Kenyans 5 trillion dollar loans that he has squandered like his drunk father used to drive, with same results.

The winner in all this is a Guy named Odinga who is getting a billion dollars a year from his cousin in the Oval Office.

43 posted on 02/05/2012 9:31:55 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson