Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
This is in your imagination, not the decision:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."
Nothing here says that NBC is = to NBS. It says the 14th amendment "affirms" citizenship by birth in the country. Its definition of natural born citizen is still from Minor which is from OUTSIDE the Constitution. WKA is a little generous in calling this an 'ancient and fundamental rule,' as the English common law rule only existed for about 300 years prior to the Constitution. In terms of England's history, that is hardly an ancient rule. If NBC = NBS, then there's no need to refer to the 14th amendment.
If you read a little further, WKA distinguishes a citizen at birth from a natural born citizen.
"...as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
Notice it doesn't say, 'if born in the country, is a natural born citizen.' By saying 'as much' its making a comparison of two distinct entities. Here's an analogy. A banana is as much of a fruit as an apple, but a banana is not an apple. A child born in the country of aliens in the United States, may be as much of a citizen as a natural born citizen (which must be born to citizen parents), but such a child born in the country of aliens is not a natural born citizen. Going back to my analogy, Obama is not a natural born citizen, but he might be a fruit.
“Nothing in WKA argues that WKA is a natural born citizen.”
Really? Then why did they spend pages discussing NBC? And why did the dissent object to the children of tourists being allowed to run fro President?
Yes, it ALSO used the 14th Amendment - I’ve stated that multiple times on this thread. However, since WKA wasn’t running for President, there was one and only one reason to bring up the definition of NBC - and that was to show that WKA met the definition, and thus was a citizen per the Constitution and that no treaty could override the Constitution.
Sigh…
No.
I believe that you and a few others have suspended your rational faculties and instead are cruising along on unfocused rage, rendering yourselves unable to think clearly on this matter.
You make up things and then act as though they are true. It’s sad, really.
From WKA:
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.
2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.
And he adds:
The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
Why are they discussing who is a natural born subject? No one cares who by common law is a natural born subject, since the term is not found in the Constitution, and English common law cannot override a treaty.
However, NBC & NBS are considered by the Court to be equivalent.
They also wrote in WKA:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . 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 as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
Let me repeat what they approvingly quoted: “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.”
THAT is why they brought it up - because NBS = NBC, and a NBS could have 2 alien parents, so a NBC could as well. And if WKA was a NBC, then no treaty could override the Constitution!
<>And every court case since has followed that lead. And NO ONE has followed Vattel. No one!<>
Yeh — sure — except for these:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Oh and Ed Meese must have been having a senior moment because even Leahy and Chertoff and other Democrats got it right:
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#LeahyResolution
I must fall back on my native Russian (or was it Hungarian) to express my feelings. Dr. Lawyer Orly Taitz is, as we used to say in olde Vladivostock (or was it Minsk and Pinsk)
She can take my deposition anywhere, except into court. She's the only dentist I ever thought of d.... O never mind!
Let me help you with clear simple logic. If you had a cat, and that cat crawled into your oven to have kittens, as clearly as night follows day, those kittens would be biscuits.
Not only that, Team Obama would require you to swallow them.
Thank you
I think I better go check the oven and find out where those meows are coming from.
Ummm...as I’ve pointed out to you before, several of your beloved 4 cases don’t even mention NBC, and none since WKA...and WKA is one of the 4 cases your article cites, and it cites it because it quotes a part of Minor, which is the article’s third case.
IOW, your article is stupid. It deceives about the point of WKA and ignores what Minor actually said, and cites two other cases just because they reference Vattel nearly 70 years before the WKA decision!
And every one who cites the ‘Leahy Resolution’ as requiring someone born IN THE USA to have 2 citizen parents is a liar. SR511 was about McCain, and it was meant to give Congress’s opinion on the second part of the question - the one Ed Meese mentioned here:
“Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”
I despise liars. And you are a liar, “Uncle Chip”!
“If you had a cat, and that cat crawled into your oven to have kittens, as clearly as night follows day, those kittens would be biscuits.”
No, they wouldn’t be biscuits...but they would be born ion an oven, and ‘natural born citizens’ of the oven, if the oven has a government.
What part of the Constitution do you not understand? The 14th Amendment, or the reference to natural born citizens, and what that implies?
Mmmm! Birther brand Kitten Biscuits! Great with Gravy!
I agree. I believe s/he was trying to race bait me. Totally disgusting to say the least.
Have a biscuit [meow!].
14th Amendment and dictionary definitions. A natural born citizen is a citizen who was born that way, and all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States [and also have state citizenship].
I’m a textualist. What are you?
Your handler/boss, Axelgreasy, must be getting very worried about this topic, to send so many of you n00bies out to places like Freerepublic. Scum like you are why the Republic is dying. You work to disrupt and destroy America. You seek to incite division, which is the Alinsky/Democrap party methodology. But for some reason I have yet to fathom, slime like you are protected at FR.
You’re freakin’ n00bie scum troll! Textualist? HAHAHAHAHA, Axelgreasy is getting desperate, to send out the current crop of lying scum like you.
Axelgrease is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with these monkeys.
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.