Posted on 03/02/2010 11:43:58 AM PST by patlin
He’s a Comma, Comma, Comma, Comma, Comma, Comma Comedian (think Boy George and Culture Club).
Smart *ss! You made me knock my root beer over! Luckily the bottle cap was closed. (Self: figure out how to do this.)
parsy, who will taunt you, now!
“...the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement;..”
Not true.
Natural born citizenship is based on natural law: it needs no legal statute to define it. I was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents - there is no question I am a natural born citizen of the U.S.
There exist legal statutes for children born in Panama to U.S. citizens.
There exist legal statutes for children born in the U.S. or in a foreign nation, to parents one of whom is a foreign national and the other a U.S. citizen.
Neither John Sydney McCain nor Barack Hussein Obama II are natural born citizens.
“Natural born citizenship is based on natural law”
Our, “NBC” is based on Constitution, which “language” in turn is based on understanding of founders, which in turn is to be found in English common law.
You can make your argument, but it probably ain’t going nowhere. Courts are pretty well decided about this.
parsy
1.The Courts haven’t even looked at the merits of NBC yet.
2. English Common Law has to do with the relations of subjects to their Monarch.
3. We are U.S. citizens, Parsy; never anyone’s ‘subjects’.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor. Read it and weap:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of England’s use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
Somebody else posted this the other day. Here is the problem. This stuff has already been petty well decided. There was a 1898 case Wong Kim Ark, which defined NBC en route to its decision. If you want to read Wong in full, here is the link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Now, many people want to bounce all over the place on the Wong language and I have spent probably close to 40 hours, according to some of my birther fans, trying to show people what the case means, and what the language is and what the context is.
If you get lost on Wong, holler and I send you a few things.
Or, if you think after reading Wong, that it don’t apply to Obama and the NBC question, then there is a very easy answer. There was a November 2009 case in Indiana which used Wong to decide that Obama was an NBC. You may not like it, but that’s probably what any court is going to do.
Now within the last few months, another court has decided this way. So it ain’t just me. Here’s the case. Only five or six pages are applicable. Pages 12-18, as I recall. And it is easier to read than Wong, Its got a “Natural Born Citizen” heading where the discussion begins.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Now if you read this, you will note that a couple of Plaintiffs filed “pro se” that is without a lawyer. They did their own legal work, and LO AND BEHOLD, they somehow completely miss the Wong case. A Supreme Court Case which is in every legal analysis of the issue.... they miss. Somehow, these two guys find the Vattel, stuff, which ain’t exactly falling off the book shelves. This is why I doubt the sincere motives of some of these people. Nobody who is honest just kinda misses the biggest case out there on the issue. But, this Court reminds them about Wong!
Vattel isn’t really even LAW. Its Vattel listing out some of the laws of the world and talking about them. It would be the same as citing the “Law for Dummies” book as law itself. The more knowledgeable types should know better. And, behave better. And, most of us don’t want the United Nations or World Courts trumping our rights as Americans. But some people think it is OK to open that door with their “laws of nations” arguments. Go figure...
But, lets look at this recent decision in a little more detail. Remember, this is from the November 2009 Indiana case. It is not binding on any Federal court, but the reasoning is probably what any court will follow. In essence, the Birthers made their arguments. The Court sent them packing, to wit:
The Birther’s Argument (based on Vattel and the usual speeches from whoever they find):
Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)
(Now for the next 5 plus pages, the Court lets them know all about WONG. A string of cases and cites from Wong running all the way back to 1608 England!)
Now the Court is ready to rule:
The Court’s Smackdown of the Birthers :
( Short answer: No, there isn’t any difference!)
The longer answer:
Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)
That’s pretty straightforward. The Birthers got one thing right-—the thinking of MOST PEOPLE is that there isn’t a difference between “citizen” (non-naturalized) and a “natural born citizen.” AND, this is NOT LIBERAL RADICAL law. For Heaven’s sake, this case incorporates the established law for over 400 years, from 1608 and maybe earlier through to 2009. And 1608.....that’s well before Saul Alinsky and Hippies and Ted Kennedy
parsy, who hopes this helps
Sweetie, it ain’t over until either SCOTUS decides, or Quo Warranto is decided in Washington, D.C.’s District Court. The Indiana case was an example of cowardice and piss-poor legal thinking by a state court. It doesn’t count for much.
There is a huge, massive difference between “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen”. And yes, I’ve read the Wong Kim Ark case. The Supremes decided he was a “native born citizen”. Because of that decision, anyone born in the U.S., even to parents who are illegal aliens, is considered a “native born citizen”. A natural born citizen is born in a nation of citizen parents.
There is nothing unfair about only “natural born citizens” being eligible to be President. No one - NO ONE! - has the ‘right’ to be President.
Whether a person is a naturalized citizen (Schwarznegger), a native-born citizen (Wong Kim Ark), a citizen-by-statute (McCain), or a natural born citizen (Reagan) - all have equal rights as citizens. But only one type of citizen is eligible to be President. That is the way our Founders intended.
Or, if you think after reading Wong, that it don’t apply to Obama
______________
DON’T?? Ok I’ve ignored it for days.... it is DOESN’T not DON’T!! Please, since you are such a *high powered attorney* (LMAO) I should not have to tell you that. I really hate grammar whores but in your case, I will make an exception since you are an Curious George as* kisser and batsh*t crazy.
Doesn’t or Don’t?
Doesn’t, does not, or does is used with the third person singular—words like he, she, and it.
Don’t, do not, or do is used for other subjects.
Incorrect: It don’t matter anymore.
Correct: It doesn’t matter anymore.
Incorrect: Grandfather don’t see too well.
Correct: Grandfather doesn’t see too well.
Correct: His glasses don’t help him much.
Play here, maybe you will then get it.
http://www.grammar.cl/Games/Dont_Doesnt.htm
Translated: Many judges are lazy and easily influenced by incorrect decisions. Natural born has been contorted to mean native-born by such judges who aren't smart enough to read or correctly interpret Wong, preceding case law and English common law.
LOL. How’s your work on that song from a few weeks ago, guitar hero. LOL(joke, don’t hate me)
goofy hat. LOL
It will be over soon enough when some bumblers break into the Watergate Huts and a security guard makes an odd discovery. /s
I don’ts like grammar nazis. /s LOL (where ya’ been for the last week anyway?)
“Sweetie, it ain’t over until either SCOTUS decides, or Quo Warranto is decided in Washington, D.C.’s District Court. The Indiana case was an example of cowardice and piss-poor legal thinking by a state court. It doesn’t count for much.”
It is your basket and you can put your eggs in it. If you choose to believe that Indiana court is wrong, that is your business. If you wish to ignore Wong, that is also your decision. Should you find yourself in court on this, then I am sure you will jump on out there with “ The Indiana case was an example of cowardice and piss-poor legal thinking by a state court. It doesn’t count for much.”
I am sure it will be “warmly” received.
As for me, I choose to read what the courts held and reasoned, and then select a basket that doesn’t have a hole in it. I suspect that I will have eggs while you are cleaning yours off the floor.
But they’re your eggs...
parsy, who wonders if you have “shepped” Wong?
Its how people from Arkansas talk.
parsy, who says it don’t matter that much
Re Translated: If a court decides a case which conflicts with my opinion, then they are “lazy and easily influenced by incorrect decisions.”
Nice work if you can get it. People who go to court don’t have the luxury of ignoring the law. Read again in my little blurb above.
Do I need to write this in a fairy tale or bedside story mode?
Once upon a time there were three little Birthers. One, went to court in Indiana and tried to win an NBC case without talking about Wong. The big bad court huffed and puffed and blew the little pig out of his court room.
The second little piggie, er Birther, went to court and told the judge the Wong Court was lazy and stupid and so was any court that relied on them. The big bad wolf, er Court huffed and puffed and blew the Birther out of the courtroom.
The third little Birther, had listened to a wise old Wolf named parsy, who said, Little Pig, you may not like Wong, but you had better find some way to distinguish your case from that one, or you’ll be blown away in the courtroom.
So, the third little Birther, thought and thought and read and read, and he realized that he just didn’t have a prayer. Instead of wasting his time on useless Birther stuff, he left the movement. Immediately, his life improved and he didn’t spend all his time trying to swim upstream. He met a nice little female ex-birther.
They went over to the wise old Wolf’s house and partied and drank Wild Vines Blackberry Merlot. The wise old Wolf played Puff the Magic Dragon on his guitar for them, and the two little piggies, er birthers fell in love and woke up the next morning in the spare bedroom. They decided to get married and lived happily ever after. The Wise Old Wolf gave away the bride at the wedding.
The other two birthers never did get it. They spent years and years in fruitless appeals and became too old to reproduce. Or even think about it. They became no fun to hang out with and eventually the two little birthers moved to a desert isle, where they sat and grumbled and rolled around in slop the rest of their days.
They didn’t live happily ever after.
parsy, who is trying to save you from this fate.....
You believe judges are infallible and never overturned? Why have appeals? Why have nine SCOTUS justices when one should do? Also, are you paid per word? Nothing else justifies so much vacuous prose. You may marvel at my economy of words.
Judges are not infallible. But one shouldn’t shouldn’t just hop, skip and jump into court like Merry Andrew, and try to stay away from Wong, and think the Court ain’t going to catch it. SCOTUS decisions are kinda important and I have proven to you modern courts will rely on it.
FWIW, I get paid by the hour with a commission for each convert, who is then transformed into a troll obot to go out and spread the word. Like in Amway, I am now a Diamond Distributor, and I get a cut off their converts. I plan on winning the trip to Hawaii.
Its easy. You don’t have to sell anything. The product sells itself. Btw are you aware how good our SA8 detergent is, and ......
parsy, who will share a testimonial from an ex-birther with you tomorrow....
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.