Posted on 04/12/2013 8:22:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
No you aren't. You just CLAIM that they are linked. Your best authority so far is RAWLE, and he was not even a delegate.
St. George Tucker is probably the next best thing you've got, and he wasn't a delegate either.
Other than Rawle and Tucker, you've got what? A Whole lot of NOTHING. Even Rawle and Tucker are pretty much nothing because neither of them was in the deliberations.
You don't even know what is a fallacious argument. If you did, you wouldn't keep making them. You haven't documented anything. You are just a loud mouth, full of blather and bulls*t who THINKS he is intelligent. You are just a special class of deluded fool.
"And the thirteenth adopted the common law rule for citizenship."Waiting...Cite the statute or state Constitution reception.
The term "citizen" as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."Reading the paragraph this sentence is extracted from will show that Judge Gaston's references to "our law" and "our constitution" are references to the statutes and Constitution of North Carolina.
North Carolina grew from a colonial condition. In the laws of North Carolina "citizen" is analogous to "subject", as would be expected due to their former colonial condition.
The United States was never a colony. It is an entirely new government with no predecessor. It is founded upon principles different than North Carolina or any of the states.
Foundational of those principles is the proposition that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. This is directly opposed to the laws of Great Britain, some of which found their way into colonies and later states.
Pertaining to citizenship, the Naturalization Act of 1790 et seq. are indicative of the differences between United States and Great Britain, which demonstrates that the United States is founded upon principles different than North Carolina or any of the states.
The application of Manuel to the United States is an error, it does not supply a rule for United States national law pertaining to citizenship.
Funny you would play the silly "real American" card, considering you value the opinion of a Swiss writer over the Father of our Constitution....
Not so funny. Just trying to figure out why someone wants to believe something moronic. Logic and reason isn't it. If it's not personal interest, then it has to be something. Perhaps you are one of those people who think this is a political loser, and so would rather subvert the truth to expediency.
There are a LOT of Republicans that fall into this category. Most, in fact. Perhaps you are on the Rubio or Cruz, or McCain election staff. Dunno, but for whatever reason, you've made up your mind and you don't care what evidence is presented, you aren't even going to consider the possibility that "anchor babies and birth tourism" is completely contrary to the intent of both the founders and the authors of the 14th amendment.
YOU'RE here pleading David Ramsay, who couldn't even get more than ONE vote in the House of Representatives and who was shot down by Father of the Constitution James Madison.
YOU'RE here pleading Samuel Roberts, who was simply a minor judge whose jurisdiction extended to several COUNTIES.
And whose opinion was shot down in no uncertain terms by the US District Attorney for the entire State.
YOU'RE here pleading Alexander Porter Morse, who had no association with the Founders at all, and who at one point contradicts himself, and you.
YOU'RE here pleading Senator Jacob Howard, who as far as we can tell, didn't even start talking about citizenship until 75 years after the Constitution was written.
Who also was there when his fellow Senators said children born in the United States of non-citizen parents were natural born citizens, even if the parents were only here temporarily, unless their parents were ambassadors, and who never raised the slightest objection to that.
YOU'RE here pretending that James Madison supports you, when Madison said that when it comes to the allegiance that makes for citizenship, "place" is "the more certain" criterion, and is "what applies in the United States."
YOU'RE here pretending that a pseudonymous letter-writer to a newspaper in 1812 was President James Madison, when there's really nothing of any substance at all to indicate the letter writer was Madison, and he - or she - could just as well have been any one of literally millions of other people.
You are a FRAUD. And your FRAUDNESS is shown quite clearly by demanding extraordinary linkages to the Founding Fathers that go far, FAR beyond anything that you yourself can POSSIBLY produce in support of your bogus, dishonest twisting of history and our Constitution.
I am working on an answer to the rest of your BS, but I have other things I'm doing, and it's taking a bit of time.
Suffice it to say for the moment, William Rawle was a much more authoritative spokesman for the Founding Fathers and Framers than I even realized. What I am writing in response to your BS is important enough that I am probably going to publish it here as a an entirely separate post.
We have literally TONS of evidence throughout history that your entire claim is absolute BS.
But even if we ONLY had William Rawle to rely on, Rawle alone utterly destroys your Constitution-twisting claim.
For the record, James Madison said that place was “the MOST certain criterion” of allegiance, not the “more” certain criterion.
It is funny that DL would play the “real American” card.
But birthers aren’t constrained by rules of reasonableness or logic.
I think you will be interested in my upcoming post on William Rawle.
My bad! I was writing from memory. :-)
“Most” strengthens your point! :-).
The “Father of the Constitution” said that where a person is born is the MOST certain criterion of allegiance.
The Supreme Court said 100 years later in US v. Wong Kim Ark that [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject...’”
This is what you get with Rubio/Conda!
Some tried to do away with the anchor baby situation and this is what they were met with!
[I]n recent days, former aides to both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, who pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, have condemned the calls by top Republicans to end birthright citizenship.
Cesar Conda, who served as domestic policy adviser to Cheney, has called such proposals “offensive.” Mark McKinnon, who served as media adviser in Bush’s two presidential campaigns, said Republicans risk losing their “rightful claim” to the 14th Amendment if they continue to “demagogue” the issue.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025131.php
Here is an excerpt of William Loughton Smith's rebuttal to Dr Ramsay's accusation, (That he hadn't been a citizen for the required 7 years.) Which were both Published in the "State Gazette of South Carolina" and submitted as evidence in the Congressional hearing on the matter.
The Doctor says the circumstance of birth does not make a citizen- This I also deny. Vattel says, " The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent. " I was born a Carolinian, and I defy the Doctor with all his ingenuity, arimetical or political, to say at what moment I was disfranchised- at what moment I lost my citizenship. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen of America under the new government, though then resident at Geneva. I never by any act disqualified myself. There never was a moment when I became a citizen of any other country. I never took and oath of any kind in my life, till I was admitted at the bar in Carolina. I never paid any tax to any other country- therefore, unless I was a citizen of South Carolina, I should be glad the Doctor's great ingenuity in discoveries would inform me what country I was a citizen of....
The Doctor thinking himself a very popular man and having no doubt that his being named a candidate was sufficient to carry his election throughout the district, when he found that he stood no chance of being elected by his own merits, he thought he would try what he could obtain by the demerit of his opponent. Not finding any thing in his character or morals, which he dared attack, he was driven to this expedient: he attacked his right of citizenship, his birth right-the inheritance of his ancestors- that, which at the age of eleven, when an orphan, was left him by his father!
...
But I should be unworthy of the good opinion of my fellow citizens, were I, for an instant, to suffer their minds to be biased by such attempts, or a reflection to be thrown on those who have, at various times, since my return to Carolina, given me their votes for public offices. When it is recollected that my ancestors came into Carolina upwards of a hundred years ago-that I was born in this very city-that every thing I hold most dear in the world is in Carolina, nay, in this very district; I trust my countrymen, will not suffer themselves to be duped with the artifices which have been made use of, and will not think that my having been a few years in Europe for my education, with the public consent, should deprive me of my right of citizenship.
...
And this last part, just for kicks.
The Doctor however declares that he will not, if elected, endeavor to procure the emancipation of slaves; but then he must act contrary to his principles and sentiments, and surely he would not wish the citizens of the district should impose so painful a burden upon him as to require him to thwart perpetually his own sentiments and principles. It is very well known that his principled against slavery, and it is idle for him to contradict what is so universally known. People can see, hear, and recollect as well as the Doctor and his handing about pamphlets imported from the northward against slavery, is a strong proof of his inclination to abolish it.
So William Loughton Smith Himself invokes Vattel, and urges consideration of his birthright through his father and ancestors. Nitwit Jeff Winston thinks the ENTIRE vote was a specific affirmation of the word "Place".
I think he is just too stubborn or too stupid to learn.
Divide the united.
It just makes it that much easier to control...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"namely: explicitly; specifically
The question asked and answered.
The question before the court was not only if Wong Kim Ark should have citizenship because of native-birth. There were OTHER NAMED AGREED UPON FACTORS and FACTS on which the ruling was explicitly based.
SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark's PARENTS' status was a determining factor in deciding that Wong Kim Ark met the 14th Amendment's required "subject to the jurisdiction" status.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Gray was presented with the perfect opportunity to define US natural born citizen as native-born without regard to parents' status. But after all the examination, citations, and quotes, Gray gave Wong's citizenship no such qualification.
As Obama's father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961, or ever, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to Obama.
Obama, legally, isn't even a U.S. citizen.
Even in the context of Madison's comment, "place" is not just a simpleminded geographical construct. It incorporates the concept of "within a community" as it's basic element. Madison explains this further if you read the rest of what he wrote.
It is exactly the same thing in the 14th amendment when they require "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They don't spell-out what this means in the Amendment itself, but in their comments during the debate they do. The lead author (John Bingham) explicitly says:
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, [ - prior to the 14th Amendment] 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;
If you are not already aware, I direct your attention to the fact that William Loughton Smith himself cites Vattel's notion of citizenship passing through the father in his defense of his citizenship. (see also previous comment to the resident liar/idiot.)
The Doctor says the circumstance of birth does not make a citizen- This I also deny. Vattel says, " The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent. " I was born a Carolinian, and I defy the Doctor with all his ingenuity, arithmetical or political, to say at what moment I was disfranchised- at what moment I lost my citizenship.
If that were true, you would be applauding them, because not being constrained by reasonableness, logic, or even FACTS, (referring to your habit of lying about what John Bingham said) is your exact modus operandi! (I apologize for using the Latin words on you again, i'm sorry that you are too simple to comprehend them.)
I think you will be interested in my upcoming post on William Rawle.
No doubt it will be a bunch of ill conceived garbage with lots of leaping conclusions. We will probably have to pull plastic sheets over ourselves to prevent getting hit by the flying sh*t.
The Only salient thing that anyone needs to know about Rawle is that he WAS NOT a delegate to the US Constitution or ratifying convention. How many of those do you have?
You still aren't appreciating the difference between forced subjugation and citizenship. The former is based on Monarchy, the latter is based on natural law. If I recall correctly, you are one of those people that often cite the opinions of some "authority". (argumentum ad verecundiam.)
Well here you go. Note what this Heritage Foundation posting has to say about this. Note also the date precedes Obama's election by two years.
And if you want this opinion bolstered by other highly thought of conservative Scholar, here you go again.
Some tried to do away with the anchor baby situation and this is what they were met with!
[I]n recent days, former aides to both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, who pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, have condemned the calls by top Republicans to end birthright citizenship.
Cesar Conda, who served as domestic policy adviser to Cheney, has called such proposals “offensive.” Mark McKinnon, who served as media adviser in Bush’s two presidential campaigns, said Republicans risk losing their “rightful claim” to the 14th Amendment if they continue to “demagogue” the issue. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025131.php
I have become increasingly convinced that most Republican and Conservative opposition to interpreting the Constitution and the 14th amendment correctly is based on their belief that this will alienate potential votes. In other words, they are more concerned with what is good politics rather than what is the truth.
They honestly don't care about what is both common sense, and what is the actual truth, provided they can use the existing confusion to milk votes. They are motivated by expediency and pragmatism rather than accuracy or principles.
That's going too far. If he was born in the United States, he gets 14th amendment citizenship. (Not the same thing as "natural citizenship because it was created by an act of Congress.)
Only if he was born outside of the United States would he not be an American citizen at all. There is a little evidence that indicates he might have been born in Canada, but mostly it is just circumstantial, nothing conclusive.
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.