Posted on 04/23/2010 6:18:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
first of all, it is not my decision that the supreme court can make up things like roe v. wade and dred scott-—but the supreme court can do it. I think both cases were wrongly decided. I do not attempt to give these legitimacy.
But can you argue that the supreme court did make those decisions and that they became the law of the land? is not abortion legal in all 50 states per SCOTUS ruling in 1973?
I am simply stating fact. The way things work in this country is that SCOTUS determines the official meaning of the law, period.
The court determined no such thing. Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen, nothing more and nothing less. Words mean things, especially in a legal setting, and the words "natural born" were never applied to Mr. Wong.
“’Actually it was Wyoming, but that’s exactly why he ‘moved’ from Texas.
“He didn’t move. He just registered to vote in Wyoming.”
That is why the word moved was in the single quotation marks. But to register to vote anywhere, you are required to declare yourself a legal resident of the state in which you are registering.
In Cheney’s case, even tho he lived pretty much full time in TX back in 2000, he no doubt maintained property in WY, so could easily just switch to listing a WY property as his primary residence.
“Wars destructive loss of advantages
—Foreign Nations would not respect our rights nor grant us reciprocity—”
Founders
“contained in the preceding chapter, that your father and I” should be replaced with “We,” to avoid any impression that Joseph was the fact in the natural father of Jesus. Even at a literalistic adherence to the original text,” moreover, does not dispose of the.... “
Interesting that Jefferson used the word ‘natural’ in his statement to who was the father of Jesus. I suppose he is referring to the Annunciation of Christ? What does the word ‘natural’ written by Jefferson mean to you as it pertains to the US Constitution natural born citizen clause? That there is no question about who was Jesus’s father is the same as there is no question to the allegiance to a country of a natural born citizen disregarding other influences?
someone should find the complete Jefferson Bible on line..could find snippets..
can someone locate the definition of freeholders;..in the ratification process New York wanted freeholders excluded from natural born citizens and citizen...I have not reached the point in the Journals where the word citizen was removed and natural born citizen was retained.
but was he not a citizen at birth? The court, to my knowledge, has never ruled that a citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen. They have never created seperate classes of people who aquired citizenship at birth, despite what many are claiming on the internet.
The court hasn’t established separate classes of citizenship. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. The man or woman who was naturalized yesterday is every bit as much a US citizen as those of us whose families have been here for generations.
That’s not the point. There is only ONE instance where ‘natural born’ comes into play, and that is for eligibility to hold the office of POTUS. Since that’s never been a question before the court, they’ve never had to make that determination one way or the other.
Yes, they have. See the Insular Cases regarding citizens at birth in United States territories, who were determined not to be natural born because they were not under the full jurisdiction of the United States.
There were also several types of noncitizen born in the United States. There were indians not taxed, there were slaves and there were children of foreigners. The concept of a denizen, as well as "inhabitant," which is what every resident of Washington DC once was regarded as being, born or otherwise, would likely be very surprising to you, given your overly simplistic view of citizenship based upon modern misperception.
Also, see every instance of entire territories made states or foreign lands made territories, for citizens by statute. In the instance of foreigners made citizens by statute in a new territory, these too were once legally regarded as "inhabitants."
There were female citizens who derived their citizenship status via their husband's citizenship, right up until the passage of the 19th Amendment in the twenties, too. This was under the auspices of the Expatriation Act of 1907 in the particular instance of Marie Elg of Perkins v. Elg. It meant that she had two citizen parents in addition to being born in the United States. It's why the court made the very rare determination that Ms. Elg was indeed a natural born citizen. It's why the court regarded her parents as both being naturalized, which was included in the factual findings of the court.
You've bought into the myth of there only being two sorts of citizen. Practically speaking from a legal standpoint, there are quite a few more than that. Under the Articles of Confederation and right up to the aftermath of the Civil War, individual States made determination of who was a citizen and how, with widely variant restrictions upon new citizens and the determination of citizenship by birth. This did not change from the founding of this nation up to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which created yet another type of citizen.
Original intent is all that applies to the eligibility clause of the Constitution, and that is the only place where you'll find the term natural born citizen in it. Look up the term "semantic originalism" and just how important it is deemed to be by Constitutional scholars, pertaining to the question of eligibility, and inform yourself.
Joseph not the natural born father of Jesus? it is mentioned in the jefferson bible..
reverse it pls..Jesus not the natural born son of joseph
Is Jesus natural born? I am trying to get into the Founders complex minds..
Legally speaking, he was. The lineage of both Joseph and Mary were important in order to fulfill prophecy of the Messiah, born of the House of David.
definition of devolve pls..the word is in jay’s letter..
The word “devolve” in this instance refers to any who would assume the role of Commander-in-Chief by succession.
Chief Justice Marshall used the word in this sense, referring to sovereignty devolving upon the people in the absence of a monarch.
So, in the absence of the duly elected Commander-in-Chief due to death, impeachment or other incapacity or inability to discharge the duties of office, these duties would devolve upon the next level down, which is the Vice President, or further down the line of succession should the Vice President be dead, impeached or otherwise incapable of discharging the duties of office.
It basically says that anyone in the line of sucession must also be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to assume the role, if need be.
“first of all, it is not my decision that the supreme court can make up things like roe v. wade and dred scott-—”
Yes it is...Your idea of the role of the USSC is evidence of it.....for your information the SCOTUS was never set up to legislate from the Bench.....
“But can you argue that the supreme court did make those decisions and that they became the law of the land? is not abortion legal in all 50 states per SCOTUS ruling in 1973?”
Is Dred Scott still the “Law of the Land?” What you fail to recognize is that the Court is fallible.... and over time reverses itself....Activist Judges eventually get overturned.....But if people like you would have their way that reversal would never occur.....
“I am simply stating fact. The way things work in this country is that SCOTUS determines the official meaning of the law, period.”
You still don’t get it, do you? The job of the USSC is to apply the law to specific situations that arise...not to define or redefine the law......Writing laws and defining it’s terms/meanings is a Legislative function......
In previous posts to this discussion you have shown yourself to be less than honest by posting/misstating Court cases to “prove” your twisted ideas of NBC etc.... you have no credibility with me on this or on any subject....none what so ever....
See ya Sonny....back to the sandbox with you....the other kids are waiting.....
my idea of the USSC? I was simply stating fact, not opinion. You cannot seem to seperate your view of an ideal (a supreme court that always agrees with you, originalist when convienant) with the reality of how the Supreme court actually makes decisions.
There is simply no binding requirement that they make their decision based on what the founding fathers might have written, read or been influenced by. If there is anything of this nature written in the constitution, then please cite it.
And does the Constitution of the USA not give the role of interpreting the law to the SCOTUS?
And of course I recognize the fallibility of the court. Just because I don’t agree with court decisions does not make them any less binding precedent. Is Roe v. Wade any less law because we both think it was wrongly decided?
And yes, I fully recognize that future courts can change the rulings of the current court and completely change the definition of the law and how it is applied. That is why the SCOTUS is so very important. The Judges have the power to say what the law means in a legally binding sense. You can disagree all that you want, but they have the final say.
Ta ta fool
Is Obama absolved from all protections from Kenya and/or GB based on his fathers citizenship? Is he absolved from all protections from Indonesia?
Is he set free from any obligations?
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.