Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: parsifal; All

I asked you to demonstrate what you know and you did ... not a g*ddamn thing!


In your 1,555 word screed, only a few sentence sentences actually had anything to do with Wong Kim Ark v US.

First of all, it is Clause 5, NOT “Clause 4” of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that the Wong Kim Ark Opinion addresses in regards to “Natural Born Citizen”. EPIC FAIL.

Second of all, as you and every other After-Birther out there knows, the Wong Kim Ark Opinion was about who is deemed a CITIZEN, not “Natural Born Citizen”:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed.


1,902 posted on 02/27/2010 7:42:55 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1867 | View Replies ]


To: BP2
First of all, it is Clause 5, NOT “Clause 4” of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that the Wong Kim Ark Opinion addresses in regards to “Natural Born Citizen”. EPIC FAIL.

Parsy, who is not so well read.

Second of all, as you and every other After-Birther out there knows, the Wong Kim Ark Opinion was about who is deemed a CITIZEN, not “Natural Born Citizen”:

Parsy, who will drone on and on and on.... Parsy, where is my Prozac?!

1,906 posted on 02/27/2010 8:05:19 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1902 | View Replies ]

To: BP2

Start here. Its how to read a case. And, if I am so wrong, how come the Indiana court went right where I did? I’m sorry, are you better at reading Wong, than a judge? I have not seen any evidence that you can do anything but pick up random bits of language and go off half-cocked on it. And post monkey pictures. And call Obama a lawyer.

I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you leap before you look in an effort to be part of the debate. You could do the same thing by asking relevant questions. And, you still have a Blackstone problem, or two.

So: start here:

http://volokh.com/files/howtoreadv2.pdf

parsy, who is awaiting your “jumped-to-conclusion” and your monkey picture


1,909 posted on 02/27/2010 8:14:57 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1902 | View Replies ]

To: BP2
I believe that this speaks to what we are trying to get across. It's about citizenship and dual citizenship. It has nothing to do with NBC but is good reading nevertheless.

To "Possess the National Consciousness of an American"

1,920 posted on 02/27/2010 9:05:30 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1902 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson