Replies

OK, you asked, so here it is:

For Non-Legal Type People: Wong Kim Ark and the Natural Born Citizen Argument Made Simple and Easy

First, if you wish to read Wong in full, here is the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Now, to understand Wong, “Keep it simple.” What the Wong court is basically trying to do is define the meanings of citizens, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. Since these terms are not defined by the Constitution, they engage in an analysis of the original intent of the Framers. That is, “What did the Framers mean when they used these words.”

So, page after page, they analyze. They even explore the “laws of nations” stuff that the Birthers are trying to pretend isn’t in there. When they get to the end, the Wong Court figures out there are only two kinds of citizens. Those that are born here, and those that are naturalized. There are a few exceptions to the “those that are born here” type, but none apply to Obama.

If you are born here, you are a citizen, and a natural born citizen. If you ain’t born here, you may be a naturalized citizen. That’s pretty much it. You can go into more detail, but a lot of it isn’t relevant to the issue of Obama.

Now, because the Wong Court went to such lengths to figure out what the Framers meant, there is a lot of citations to cases and treatises. Some people start off thru the case and get lost as to where they are and pull some tidbit of language from here or there and go off on a tangent. (Example: “Permanent domicile —You have to have that.!) No. That’s pulled out of context.

Forget all that crap. If you are not a lawyer, you will work yourself into a new tizzy every 30 seconds with a tidbit of language. You will zing around caroming off a phrase or clause like a silver ball in a pinball machine. The Wong court said that a little Chinese kid was born here. His parents were citizens of China. The Wong court said he was citizen, not a naturalized citizen, but a citizen of the United States, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HERE. That ain’t hard.

And from the language, you can tell that he is also a natural born citizen, even if the Court doesn’t say so in one discrete place in the case. That’s it. The Wong court gets to that conclusion by relying on English common law, which the framers knew well, because many of them were lawyers. When they said natural born citizen, they pretty well knew what they were talking about. There might have been a few little exceptions here or there to be ironed out, but basically if you were born in a country and you don’t fit into the exceptions, you are “natural born subject” which is the same thing as a “natural born citizen.”

Do you have to LIKE Obama to believe this? No. Of course not. Conservatives and others do not like Obama. But, the legal issues are separate and distinct from those feelings. As good Americans, we should accept the results of an election whether we like the results or not. But since Bush-Gore 2000, there now seems to be a “crybaby” element in America. Now there are some knowledgeable crybabies who don’t know how to lose an election like a good American. And there are some people who listen to the crybabies and follow them without knowing any better. They get fooled and confused by the knowledgeable type Birthers and the “natural born citizen” subset of the Birthers. Most Birthers aren’t crybabies, and they sincerely believe what is being fed to them. Those Birthers are being purposely mislead by the more knowledgeable crybabies. Here’s how the mis-leaders operate.

The knowledgeable crybabies read Wong and they don’t like Wong because it’s not what they want to hear. Obama is a natural born citizen relying on English common law.... and the American Courts’ use of those cases. (DAMN THOSE ENGLISH, they say!) So they set about to find a way around the English common law. They have to, because English common law is real clear about the situation and Wong approves, adopts, and uses the English common law to determine the Framers’ Original Intent. . .If any Court uses Wong, their little crybaby behinds are toast! BUT THE COURTS CAN NOT JUST IGNORE A RELEVANT SUPREME COURT CASE! To do so would be un-American and ultimately unconstitutional.

So the crybabies figure out if they can get to some non-English common law, and use it, and get a court to avoid Wong, they may have a way to overturn the election. It ain’t got a darn thing to do with any love of the Constitution. If they loved the Constitution, they would follow both the facts and the law.

So, the crybabies go to “international” law, kinda like Orly Taitz’s is running off to the United Nations. They find this guy named Vattel from 1800 something or another who adds some additional qualifications to being a citizen. They pounce on poor Vattel like he’s the only prostitute in town and they just got off the ship after 6 months. Kinda.

They construct this new fabric of what a “natural born citizen” is, based on Vattel and start pumping him like crazy. BS. You see, the Wong Court has already reviewed the laws of nations type stuff, and they don’t find anything there which is really too far out of line with English common laws which say being born in a country is enough to make then a natural born subject. Along the way they discuss some of the Vattel like “allegiance” arguments and THEY ANSWER THEM. The Wong decision HAS ALREADY BUILT THAT INTO ITS DECISION.

Now, is this just me? Is this just my opinion. Yeah. But its why most legal minded type people don’t have a real legal problem with Obama being a natural born citizen. But, lawyers have to eat, too. Sooooo, if you pay one several hundred dollars per hour, he will “hop to” and start spinning out the BS. But its BS. Most legal people figure Wong covers it.

Now within the last few months, another court has decided this way. So it ain’t just me. Here’s the case. Only five or six pages are applicable. Pages 12-18, as I recall. And it is easier to read than Wong, Its got a “Natural Born Citizen” heading where the discussion begins.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Now if you read this, you will note that a couple of Plaintiffs filed “pro se” that is without a lawyer. They did their own legal work, and LO AND BEHOLD, they somehow completely miss the Wong case. A Supreme Court Case which is in every legal analysis of the issue.... they miss. Somehow, these two guys find the Vattel, stuff, which ain’t exactly falling off the book shelves. This is why I doubt the sincere motives of the crybabies. Nobody who is honest just kinda misses the biggest case out there on the issue. But, this Court reminds them about Wong!

And that “kinda” stuff above? Well Vattel isn’t really even LAW. Its Vattel listing out some of the laws of the world and talking about them. It would be the same as citing the “Law for Dummies” book as law itself. The more knowledgeable types should know better. And, behave better. And, most of us don’t want the United Nations or World Courts trumping our rights as Americans. But the crybabies think it is OK to open that door with their “laws of nations” arguments. Go figure...

But, lets look at this recent decision in a little more detail. Remember, this is from the November 2009 Indiana case. It is not binding on any Federal court, but the reasoning is probably what any court will follow. In essence, the crybabies made their arguments. The Court sent them packing, to wit:

The Crybabies’ Argument (based on Vattel and the usual speeches from whoever they find):

Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)

(Now for the next 5 plus pages, the Court lets them know all about WONG. A string of cases and cites from Wong running all the way back to 1608 England!)

Now the Court is ready to rule:

The Court’s Smackdown of the Crybabies : ( Short answer: No, there isn’t any difference!) The longer answer:

Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)

That’s pretty straightforward. The Crybabies got one thing right-—the thinking of MOST PEOPLE is that there isn’t a difference between “citizen” (non-naturalized) and a “natural born citizen.” AND, this is NOT LIBERAL RADICAL law. For Heaven’s sake, this case incorporates the established law for over 400 years, from 1608 and maybe earlier through to 2009. And 1608.....that’s well before Saul Alinsky and Hippies and Ted Kennedy

parsy, who hopes this helps