US Solicitor General Holmes Conrad brief on WKA [1897]

uchastings.edu via comment by Kerchner@Apuzzo blog site ^ | March 1897 | Holmes Conrad -US Solicitor General

[patlin]

This sheds more light on the governments position as to the citizenship status of WKA and to the judicial activism & usurping of the US Constitution that insued by Grays erroneous ruling. We need to share this with the new 112th Congress as well as all the new state legislators.

To finally & completely correct the NBC issue, we MUST tackle the unconstitutionality of birthright citizenship and dual allegiances.

[patlin]

PING to more historical reference on natural born citizenship thanks to Kerchner & Apuzzo

http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/Reply%20Brief1.pdf

[Red Steel]

Bump for later read.

[bushpilot1]

Thanks..from the site u posted:

For further research: the Congression Research Service report U.S Citizenship of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents provides a non-partisan analyis of this issue. The most current update of the report is March 1, 2007.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL33079.pdf

Cannot locate the document..maybe to much wine today..merry xmas.

[bushpilot1]

http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/legacy.htm

[jamese777]

For the record the Supreme Court ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark was a 6-2 decision with Justice Joseph McKenna not taking part in the case or the ruling.
While Justice Gray did write the majority opinion, he was joined by 5 other Justices.

[bushpilot1]

Legislation Denying Citizenship at Birth To Certain Children

Born in the United States

http://www.justice.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

A Clinton appointee, democrat and defender of terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Dellinger_III

located this from the link patlin posted.

Citizenship is not about the Constitution..it is special interests. Hope the new Congress fixes this problem.

[patlin]

1st of all, I didn't PING your trolling koolaide drinking delusional world

2nd, this has to do with Gray reversing his own deciding opinion from the 1884 Elk case wherein he(Gray) & the court unanimously(including the dissenters) determined “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean complete & total allegiance, locally as well as politically, to the US. Complete allegiance as in “not owing allegiance to any foreign nation aka foreign citizenship/subjectship as Obama himself claims to have had at birth. The court determined that US Citizenship is something that could ONLY be done by consent either personally or through the tacit consent of the parent(s)/guardian(s) acting on behalf of the child. Parent(s)/guardian(s) who themselves were subject to the US politically and who held the right under US law to act politically for the child.

3rd, Gray stated in his opinion that Wong was AS MUCH a citizen as a natural born citizen. If he meant that birthright subjectship was equivalent to NBC he would have stated that Wong WAS a natural born citizen. But he didn't did he?

Now, move along troll. Your redundancy is getting annoying and this is too important to waste anymore time on your ignorant arse.

[patlin]

WOW, a true lefty that obummer can get his commie luvin arms around. BARF!

[jamese777]

1st of all, I didn’t PING your trolling koolaide drinking delusional world
2nd, this has to do with Gray reversing his own deciding opinion from the 1884 Elk case wherein he(Gray) & the court unanimously(including the dissenters) determined “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean complete & total allegiance, locally as well as politically, to the US. Complete allegiance as in “not owing allegiance to any foreign nation aka foreign citizenship/subjectship as Obama himself claims to have had at birth. The court determined that US Citizenship is something that could ONLY be done by consent either personally or through the tacit consent of the parent(s)/guardian(s) acting on behalf of the child. Parent(s)/guardian(s) who themselves were subject to the US politically and who held the right under US law to act politically for the child.

3rd, Gray stated in his opinion that Wong was AS MUCH a citizen as a natural born citizen. If he meant that birthright subjectship was equivalent to NBC he would have stated that Wong WAS a natural born citizen. But he didn’t did he?

Now, move along troll. Your redundancy is getting annoying and this is too important to waste anymore time on your ignorant arse.

---

If you want private correspondance, I suggest that you send mail.

There have been 112 years and probably one hundred additional Supreme Court Justices to reverse Wong and make a fool of Justice Gray, if it was a bad decision and “unconstitutional” as you claim.

How a Supreme Court decision can be “unconstitutional” is beyond me, but be that as it may, why no reversal? Nothing you posted changes the fact that the decision in Wong was 6 to 2.

If your side of this debate can interest Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas in your point of view, we’ll have something really interesting to talk about. I wish you good fortune with that endeavor.

I’m going to take your sage advice now and I’m “moving” along, to the next post and the next thread. If my redundancy is boring you, please, feel free to ignore my posts. I won’t be offended in the least.

Y’all have a nice day now, ya hear?

---

“Based on the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a “natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to examine any other.”—Congressman James Madison, 1789

Justice Antonin Scalia: “...I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? They didn’t want that. They wanted natural born Americans.”

Plaintiff’s Attorney, Ms. Davis: “Yes, by the same token...” Scalia interupts her.

Justice Scalia: “That’s ‘jus soli’.”
Oral Arguements: Tuan Anh Nguyen v INS (No. 99-2071), January 9, 2001.