Posted on 06/22/2012 9:27:36 AM PDT by Perseverando
You already admitted that the reason to say anything about citizen parents was to go elsewhere from the Constitution, which means elsewhere from the 14th amendment, AND because it was in YOUR words a "conclusive definition" of natural-born citizen. You don't have 40 or 50 citations that prove me wrong. You don't even have one and you argued against yourself.
post post post like crazy because you can get some more posts in.....from 79 to 121...of 42 posts 24 are yours.......come now post post post
post post post like crazy because you can get some more posts in.....from 79 to 121...of 42 posts 24 are yours.......come now post post post
Of course I could provide over 50 citations that disprove your misunderstanding but you only deserve a little of my time so here is one:
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as “Congress’s think tank”, an official governmental department along with GAO and CBO, had this to say:
“ In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”
So go ahead and continue your little conspiracy theory in the land of wing nuts. Add words to the Constitution that do not belong there at your own peril however because that makes you no different than the liberal wing nuts out there.
No, there are at four kinds because of the 14th amendment, and the Minor court lists a fifth which most Foggers conveniently forget.
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.The 14th Amendment to the Constitution clarifies for any of us who would want to think otherwise that being born within the jurisdiction of the United States confers natural-born rather than naturalized citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, expressly affirms this understanding of the 14th Amendment.
- - -
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption.
The Wong Kim Ark court tells us otherwise very specifically. Read and learn:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution, so when the court says the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens, it is very specifically saying the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The dissent in Ark makes it very clear that the 6-2 majority decision afforded to Wong the right to run for President even though both of his parents were not U.S. citizens. He inherited that right because he was born in San Francisco.
The dissent was responding to a question directly from the appeal that the majority did not even address. NOTHING in the majority decision affords Ark the right to run for president. Plus, the dissent AGREED with the majority's definition of 14th amendment birth citizenship, just not for Ark because of a contrary treaty:
the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens ...
Now why would the dissent say this if he thought such citizenship made a person a natural-born citizen???
The statement by the CRS is the opinion of its author. His claim is not merited out by review of the Supreme Court cases that form the nation's highest legal opinion. He's ignoring Luria v. United States which cites Minor which said: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... THESE are the natural-born citizens.
His claim? Do you know what the CRS is? It is not a person but the research group that our congress depends upon for its interpretation of the law!
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/history.html
If they get it wrong then this country is REALLY screwed!
You say, “there are at four kinds (of citizens) because of the 14th amendment.”
I only know of two, natural born and naturalized. Enlighten me, what are the other two and where can they be found and do they require citizen parents? See, this is the question I’ve been asking you throughout this thread. So please deliver the answer without any misdirection.
Mr Bingham wrote in 1862:
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic are citizens by birth — natural-born citizens.” (Congressional Globe, 37th, 2nd Session (1862), page 1639, leftmost column)
Furthermore you mention Luria as if it helps your argument.
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913): “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
The most recent CRS memo on eligibility was written by Jack Maskell. The memo is HIS opinion, but is obviously superceded by the three Supreme Court decisions that were unanimous in affirming that NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
I only know of two, natural born and naturalized.
What you "know of" doesn't define the full limits of citizenship. I just gave you a third type of citizenship directly from the Minor decision. Here's another part of that same passage. Maybe you'll understand this better:
He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.
Do you understand?? The "original citizens" were citizens by association, not by naturalization nor by birth, per se. The 14th amendment ADDED two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and naturalization for those persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which the Ark court defined as "resident aliens." If such person were already citizens, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.
Mr Bingham wrote in 1862:
He didn't write that. This was from a debate; a few sentences later he added a qualifier that the natural-born citizens were those born "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty ..." this description alone precludes Obama from being a natural-born citizen. Thanks for pointing it out.
Furthermore you mention Luria as if it helps your argument.
It does. You conveniently omitted the citations for the bolded sentence:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.You'll notice, there's absolutely NO reference to Wong Kim Ark, so the court is NOT citing Ark as a precedent on presidential eligiblity, but it DOES cite Minor; and we already know that Minor defined natives as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."
But can NBC be obtained in other ways as in just by being born in America? How would you explain this:
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
or this
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866):
You lie!
The court didn't leave anything "unsettled." It reviewed every known way to be a citizen, but only one way was characterized as natural-born: birth in the country to citizen parents. The Minor court said there was doubt about the CITIZENSHIP of those born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents but they never suggested such persons, if the doubt was resolved, would be natural-born citizens. For that to be true, all they had to do was accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment.
How would you explain this:
The citation of Lynch v. Clarke is not controlling legal precedent. The Wong Kim Ark decision cited it only to say that it was one of a handful of decisions that have " gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law ..." Notice how they did NOT cite the passage you cited. Lynch has some key problems because it ignored some very clear Supreme Court precedents. Second, New York, where Lynch was decided, did have statutes that were generally declaratory of common law, but the issue of Article II eligibility is not based on that common law, as Minor unanimously tells us.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866):
I'm glad you quoted U.S. v. Rhodes. This passage is actually in reference to a principle cited in the Supreme Court case Shanks v. Dupont, which said that if you were born to parents who adhered to the crown, you were a natural-born subject and if they adhered to the U.S., you were a natural-born citizen. It means you can't be both, and, under this precedent, Obama is a natural-born SUBJECT through his father who adhered to British-Kenyan nationality. Here's the paragraph previous to what you quoted:
In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 247, the supreme court of the United States said: “During the war each party claimed the allegiance of the natives of the colonies as due exclusively to itself. The Americans insisted upon the allegiance of all born within the states, respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive claim. The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. [**17] It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown,and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
Notice the part underlined above: natives or otherwise. This means that it includes those born in the United States. If the parents were loyalists, then their children were born British subjects in the United States. This was only a few years prior to the Constitution, and it shows the recognition of native-born persons as foreign subjects. There's no way upon this treaty then that any of the Framers would have presumed that any person born in the U.S. was automatically a U.S. citizen, especially if they were born to British parents. Of course, the loyalists were pretty much driven out of the U.S., which solved this problem, but the principle was never changed.
You’ve worn me out. Good luck on your impossible quest to get someone to believe you. I don’t. You throw around a bunch of stuff that you don’t understand because of your misinterpretation and inadequate comprehension skills; stuff that doesn’t mean anything to any judge or lawmaker or anyone else that can help you change the meaning of what NBC is known to be by sane people.
You, Donofrio and Apuzzo are all a bunch of misguided (*’s).
When Obummer goes unchallenged before the Electoral College we will see where this all got you. Citizenship derives from the Constitution and law. When you find the law that says NBC requires, I say requires, citizen parents to the EXCLUSION of all others, let me know.
In the meantime I will be working on other ways to get our failure-in-chief out of office.
Not that it matters to you but 8 or 9 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were born overseas. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England. I think these men would frown on what you are doing.
Thanks for conceding the argument, but whining after the fact just looks petty and immature.
You assume you've won so you gloat, yeah, that's mature! I conceded nothing; I just got tired of dealing with you – sort of like banging my head against a wall which gets tiresome after a while. If you thing I conceded anything then you're a bigger jerk than I thought. I just gave you a way to save face in light of the defeat you suffered. You proved nothing with your arguments other than your complete misunderstanding of U.S. law and custom.
How is this for a concession: Your band of misguided brothers will never see a victory. Your version of NBC will never see the light of day. No court in this land will take your side. No one believes you because you twist everything by totally disregarding context. And the final blow to your position is you can't prove that NBC requires citizen parents and you know it yet you persist in the insanity.
If you were right it should be simple enough to ferret out the written law that says that in order to be eligible for president you can ONLY be the child of a U.S. citizen. You won’t because you can’t but you will continue to piss in the wind.
Not that it matters to you but I have a curious thought. Just what makes you think that having a citizen parent would make you a more loyal president or bear more allegiance? Madison certainly believed that allegiance came of birth! You dishonor the millions of loyal immigrants who came here legally looking for the American dream. Why should their sons or daughters born upon this land be deprived the privilege of serving this country in the presidency if they prove themselves? Many no citizen parent soldiers and sailors gave up their lives fighting our wars! This is what our forefathers fought for. Why would they deny ANY freedom or privilege to any loyal American who wanted to succeed? They wouldn’t and that is why the law you are looking for does not exist.
Maturity comes with knowing when to give up an unwinnable situation. It’s admirable to stick up for what you believe in but wisdom dictates that the belief be viable otherwise you come off looking like a fool.
Nice meltdown. Rarely have I seen someone work so hard to deny the obvious concession on the argument.
I didn’ have to work hard at all to discredit you.
Several paragraphs of meltdown show otherwise.
What a constructive last word; had to get it in didn’t you? I knew you would. You are incapable for forwarding your own agenda so you resort to ridicule. Way to go moron!
Nice double standard, considering the insults and ridicule you resorted to several posts ago ... and now desperate namecalling. Again, nice meltdown. My point stands.
You don’t give up a losing argument do you? I just want you to justify your position and you refuse which is what a moron or an idiot would do. You say our president must have citizen parents yet you don’t tell me the law that requires it. The one making an assertion must be able to prove it. You have not proved it yet you declare victory. That is idiotic!
Someone else posted this and I will borrow it because it is apropos to you.
Life is so much simpler for you isn’t it? As a Birther you can
- Lose every time in the courts and pretend it doesn’t matter
- Pretend case law says something it doesn’t
- Ignore page after page of well reasoned out research that disproves your conclusions
- Ignore questions you know you cannot answer
- Use quotes out of context
- Disagree with 99.9% of the legal scholars and proclaim you are right
- When all else fails just make it up
- Declare victory even when you’ve been completely shown to be a fool
This is my last post on this thread with you but I’ll bet you’ll try to get the last word in again. But if that last word isn’t the proof that makes your point, the only thing you prove will be that you are a sore loser and probably suffer from little-guy syndrome. Sand box mentality. Did I just have another meltdown? You would say so but frustration with dealing with a person who makes no sense I would say is more likely.
I'm not losing. I've countered every lame objection you could come up with because I know the subject material better than you do. I've given several direct quotes that back me up from the nation's highest legal authority. The Supreme Court was clear: all children born in the country to parents who were citizens ... THESE are the natural-born citizens. It is THE exclusive and, in your own words, conclusive definition of natural-born citizen. Obama, as the child of a foreign national citizen, is not and CANNOT be a natural-born citizen.
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.