NH Removes Presidential Candidate! (hypocrisy alert)

“Why not quote the SCOTUS definition?”

I have in other threads, and will again below, but for we laymen secondary authorities such as /Black’s/ are more instructive. The editors of /Black’s/ actually have the expertise that the Vattel-birthers pretend, to understand what precedents control and what they mean.

On the issue here courts and legal scholars cite U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the SCOTUS quoted the definition to British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’” In the same opinion the Court explained that our Constitution is written in the language of English common law, and, “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.”

We laymen can read a legal ruling from the highest court in the land and understand it just fine thank you. We do not need the high priests of lawyers and judges to spoon feed it to us.

M v. H lays it out just fine. Quoting other sources is intentional and malicious deflection.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the precise definition of what is in Article II, Section 1. We need nothing secondary to support it. It is clear.

bluecat6 wrote: “We laymen can read a legal ruling from the highest court in the land and understand it just fine thank you.”

Hey, if you are happy with the birther’s record in court, good for you. “The highest court in the land”, as you put it, has spoken to birther issues saying: Denied; Denied; Dismissed; Congratulations, Mr. President; Denied; Dismissed; Denied; Welcome to the Court, Madam Justice; Denied; Denied; Welcome to the Court, Madam Justice; Denied; Denied. I tend to prefer legal theories that win in court, but if 100% failure and defeat is just fine with you, who am I to rain on your parade?

bluecat6 wrote: “M v. H lays it out just fine. Quoting other sources is intentional and malicious deflection. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the precise definition of what is in Article II, Section 1. We need nothing secondary to support it. It is clear.”

Nice that your needs are so well met. I was writing about reality, where all the branches of our government recognize that Barack Obama is President of the United States. If you prefer your fantasy world, well, you have a right to self-delusion, and you’d probably be better off not asking me such questions as, “Why not quote the SCOTUS definition?” Obviously you did not actually want the answer.

By law you inherit citizenship from your parent in virtually every country on the planet, regardless of place of birth. Obamas daddy was a British and then Kenyan citizen. His second daddy adopted him and he became an Indonesian citizen while growing up in Jakarta.

In Jakarta, he learned all his first civics lessons as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. He learned that Capitalism sucks and that Americans are greedy bastards that need to be kicked in the ass.

A natural born citizen doesn't have three or four citizenships and think that the American flag should be used to wipe his ass. Obama does.

Good find. I haven't been able to find anything more about those senate judiciary committee hearings. I'll keep looking from time to time.

You did see that post I made regarding how the court regarded the wife of a man to be an American Citizen because her grandfather was an American citizen, which made her father an American citizen, which made HER an American citizen? (And therefore HIM a non-indian from having married her.)

The court specifically ruled that the woman was an American citizen through her descent by her father's father being an American citizen. It even mentions that the "question is to be solved in the same way as if one parent was a citizen of the United States and the other a citizen of a foreign nation."

On the issue here courts and legal scholars cite U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the SCOTUS quoted the definition to British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’” In the same opinion the Court explained that our Constitution is written in the language of English common law, and, “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.”

You did happen to see this page from John Adam's very own personal copy of Bacon (1736) on law?

Apparently the main requirement for a "natural born subject" according to one book KNOWN to have been in a founder's possession was that the PARENTS had to be under the ACTUAL Obedience of the King. I take that to mean that they already had to be loyal subjects. Transient Aliens need not apply. I also notice it references the PARENTS First, before it mentions place of birth. I take that to mean that the one thing is of greater significance than the other.

Link

Hey, if you are happy with the birther’s record in court, good for you. “The highest court in the land”, as you put it, has spoken to birther issues saying: Denied; Denied; Dismissed; Congratulations, Mr. President; Denied; Dismissed; Denied; Welcome to the Court, Madam Justice; Denied; Denied; Welcome to the Court, Madam Justice; Denied; Denied. I tend to prefer legal theories that win in court, but if 100% failure and defeat is just fine with you, who am I to rain on your parade?

Apparently you are so uncomprehending that you do not realize the only legal theory being tested in court is whether or not private citizens can sue to enforce Article II constitutional law. I have yet to hear a single ruling on the MERITS of the legal theory being offered regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." I dare say it looks apparent to me that the courts are mortally TERRIFIED of the possibility that they will have to entertain the salient question. As we have yet to see ANY court decision on the salient point, you argument is deceitful at worst and indicative of idiocy at best.

Minor v. Happersett is settled law. Regardless of what is in a dictionary.

Dictionary vs. formal legal ruling by the highest court on the land?

I bet you use Wikipedia too....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

Oh yes, it cites Blacks. And, conveniently, ignores the only Supreme Court Ruling that actually, specifically defined what “natural born Citizen” is.

It is interesting that Blacks uses a term introduced in the 14 Amendment as part of its ‘definition’. So there was no definition prior to the 14th Amendment? How ludicrous is that.

All that is needed:

“...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,...”

Lets get it down the only the critical definition:

“children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”

Simple enough.

Since it is legal fact (regardless of the actual facts) that Obama is the son of British Citizen and thus acquired British Citizenship from birth via British law. His own website says he was born a British Citizen.

Where is his renunciation of that citizenship? You never simply lose your British Subject status. You must formally renounce it via British form RN.

Where is Obama’s form RN?

“Apparently the main requirement for a “natural born subject” according to one book KNOWN to have been in a founder’s possession was that the PARENTS had to be under the ACTUAL Obedience of the King. I take that to mean that they already had to be loyal subjects.”

You can take to mean whatever you like but your your jurisdiction is the inside of your own head.

What’s more, we did not adopt the English common law, only its language. “Natural born” means from birth. That’s language. Who qualifies as a citizen from birth is a question of law, not language.

bluecat6 wrote: “Minor v. Happersett is settled law. Regardless of what is in a dictionary.”

Uh, you might look up the 19’th Amendment. Kind of un-settled Minor v. Happersett. What’s more, not even in the dicta did the opinion hold anyone *not* to be a natural-born citizen, which is what you need.

bluecat6 wrote: “Dictionary vs. formal legal ruling by the highest court on the land?”

You guys are a hoot. I explain, “The editors of /Black’s/ actually have the expertise that the Vattel-birthers pretend, to understand what precedents control and what they mean”, and you quickly demo just that pretending.

“A natural born citizen is defined not of just being born in America but that parents were also born there.”

NBC means born in country to citizen parents.......this does not preclude parents that were born elsewhere, but who became naturalized US Citizens. quite different from your statement.

BTW the vast majority of US citizens are Natural Born Citizens.....it is not a very difficult eligibility to meet. Obama does not meet the standard.........

The critical text from M v. H ruling is not dicta. Another outright lie - it is part of the ruling.

The 19th never invalidated M v. H. M v. H is solid. Hence why the 19th was needed. The 19th altered Minor’s status and ability to vote but did not, in any way, overturn or invalidate M v. H. M v. H has NOT been overturned, invalidated or overruled.

Now it is said we need a ruling to say what was is NOT a natural born citizen. Maybe you should take a class in set theory for that answer.

BTW, where is that RN form?

An article from the Washington Republic posted in the NY Times posted 1880..natural and descent.

An excerpt: “Chief Justice Waite comes naturally to the Bar
by descent. His ancestors settled in Lyme Conn.”

Dec 28, 1880

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10C1EF9395B1B7A93CAAB1789D95F448884F9

You can take to mean whatever you like but your your jurisdiction is the inside of your own head.

You are like the climate gate "scientists." Trying to force reality to fit the notions of the "experts" you like. The issue has yet to be adjudicated in front of any court. They keep running away from it with excuses for not hearing the case, rather than a determination on the merits.

What’s more, we did not adopt the English common law, only its language. “Natural born” means from birth. That’s language. Who qualifies as a citizen from birth is a question of law, not language.

My, but we have the lawyers penchant for splitting hairs. When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim "no we didn't." When I point out that the definition of the British law as understood by at least one Founder, was that of being born to Parents in Obedience of the King, you claim we didn't adopt their law, just their language. Seems as though you wish to have your cake and eat it too.

As for your "Citizen at birth" argument, that is complete nonsense. Bellei was a "Citizen at birth", but he was not a "natural born citizen." That he LOST his citizenship is proof that "Citizen at birth" does not equal "natural born citizen."

Also, why no comment on this?

(Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879)

"In the case of Ludlam v Ludlam 31, barb.,486. the court says: The Universal Maxim of the common law being Partus sequitur Patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully and without a breach of his allegiance... No matter what may be the condition of the mother."

The very word "Patriot" is derived from "Father." The Latin word for "Country" means "land of my father." The word "Paternity" means "of the father." Just how clueless do you have to be to not comprehend the connection with legitimacy to the father?

You spoke of language earlier, take a cue and learn something from the language.

“Now it is said we need a ruling to say what was is NOT a natural born citizen. Maybe you should take a class in set theory for that answer.”

The logic is pretty simple. If you want to argue that someone is not a natural-born citizen, a declaration that certain people are natural-born citizens is not what you need. That all A is B does not imply that all B is A. You simply get a big red X through your homework.

“Also, why no comment on this? (Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879)

Obviously overruled by U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, if not before.

DiogenesLamp wrote: “My, but we have the lawyers penchant for splitting hairs.”

Sorry if you find what lawyers do too complex, but I’ve been telling you that understanding the precedents is like that. Real experts, such as the editors of /Black’s Law Dictionary/ actually have the expertise to do so.

“When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim ‘no we didn’t.’”

You quote me falsely.

Sorry if you find what lawyers do too complex, but I’ve been telling you that understanding the precedents is like that. Real experts, such as the editors of /Black’s Law Dictionary/ actually have the expertise to do so.

You mistake me. I find what lawyers do overly simplistic and childish. My expertise is in utilizing physical laws and logic, not man made prattle and procedure. (ritual.) Nowadays I see little difference between law and religion. In both cases, the high priests wear robes and hand down the word of "God."

“When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim ‘no we didn’t.’”,/i>

You quote me falsely.

Not at all. You misread or miscomprehended. I simply lumped you in with all the others with whom I have argued. As I cannot see much difference between one silly argument and another, I have extreme difficulty distinguishing your arguments from the rest of the crowd. That you specifically may not have made this argument does not make the others that have done so less stupid, it just means that you don't share that Particular stupidity. As it is, you seem to have more than enough of your own bad arguments to compensate.

I notice you also skirt my salient points. Does it never occur to you that were your position correct, there would be no supporting basis for our position whatsoever? We have dragged up historical precedent after precedent, and yet according to your theory, none of these precedents should even exist!

In my messages of yesterday, I have caused the fish to jump in the boat, and still you cannot seem to grasp it.