| "citizen" "native born" "natural born citizen" To Parsley, they’re all the same.
|
Epic fail is trying to get this thread to load. Maybe all the birther kiddies should restrict their pics and emoticons. This isn’t DU, you know.
Anyway, you said:
“but what I guess I am trying to say is that when After-Birthers cite a terribly “Progressive” and obviously logically flawed decision like Kim Wong Ark to use as some sort of “proof” against us Constitutional Disciples, well...it is like me quoting the Dred Scott decision to them to justify slavery before the signing of the emancipation proclamation; it doesn’t change what I, and others, instinctively know to be proper and just.”
You seemed to love Vattel in Dred Scott. In Wong, the Court discussed the law of nations. I will let you find the section. A re-read of Wong would be good for you. (Hint: The Wong Court doesn’t “Over-rule” Vattel)
So, again, you “instinctively know “ which cases are best. It doesn’t work that way. Usually, the later cases subsume earlier cases on relevant points.
Wong is used because Wong decides the relevant issues. Like it or not, its the law. I gave you that Indiana case. It is a 2009 case. It is not binding on any court, but as I said, it shows you where the current state of the law is.
parsy
| "citizen" "native born" "natural born citizen" To Parsley, they’re all the same.
|
Get a REAL computer. It loads instantly for me.
EPIC FAIL!
You are still failing basic reading comprehension.
Since I can see that you will never figure this out on your own, let me help you out:
I threw the Dred Scott decision out there because that is how stupid you After-Birthers sound when you keep throwing out the Kim Wong Ark decision in an attempt to prove something that has nothing to do with the actual INTENT of the Founding Fathers. Just like Dred Scott, Kim Wong Ark doesn’t matter in this context.
Let me elaborate:
I DON’T CARE what case you or anyone else is using to justify whatever you wish to believe. Nor do I really care whether Vattel’s definition or Blackhole’s definition was floating around in the heads of the Founding Fathers when writing that the President should be a Natural-Born Citizen.
I am a Constitutional Disciple. I CARE about the INTENT of the words Our Founding Fathers used when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.
The INTENT of the Natural-Born Citizen requirement was an attempt by the Founding Fathers to assure that the Office of President was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S.
This is VERIFIABLE FACT. I am sure you have come across a statement by one of Our Founding Fathers, Charles Pinckney: “...and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.”
——****——
In St. George Tucker’s Treatise on the Constitution (1803), St. George Tucker wrote:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague....”
——****——
President George Washington said in his farewell address:
“Passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils...Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
“And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”
-——****-——
Obama freely admits on his official campaign website that he was born with dual-citizenship.
In and of itself, being born with dual-citizenship brings into question a possible violation of the INTENT of Our Founding Fathers when they drafted the Natural Born Citizen requirement.
However, as you would most certainly agree with me here, dual-citizenship at birth vs. the INTENT of Our Founding Fathers is certainly open for debate.
You see, being born with dual-citizenship only becomes a major problem when that person begins to show split allegiances between the United States and the nation of his/her other citizenship.
Since Obama has certainly shown his allegiances to Kenya by actively participating in the affairs of the Kenyan political process when he went to Kenya and campaigned for Odinga without direct orders from the United States government to do so, he has demonstrated his split-allegiances and is most definitely in violation of the INTENT of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. (Sorry for the run-on sentence, it’s getting late).
Therefore, I am of the opinion that since Obama has violated the INTENT of a Natural Born Citizen requirement, Obama is no longer a true, Natural Born Citizen (if he ever was).
In conclusion, it doesn’t matter which Supreme Court case one decides to cite in an attempt to define the phrase, “Natural Born Citizen.” Nor does the 14th Amendment in anyway change Our Founding Fathers’ INTENT when they wrote the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President.
To endlessly cite any SCOTUS decision as the word of law on this particular subject, ad nauseam, is just a waste of time and detracts from the one thing that matters most: The INTENT of the law.
Cheers
| The INTENT of the Natural-Born Citizen requirement was an attempt by the Founding Fathers to assure that the Office of President was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. Exactly. DoctorBulldog nailed it.
|
