Click the Smoke Thank you, JoeProBono
He's cute and tiny
But they grow up so fast
Become a monthly donor and kill the FReepathon dragons
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:19 PM PST by edge919
I've been giving this some thought, because it's clear to me, but others seem to have a hard time understanding why the natural-born citizen definition is an exclusive, self-limiting definition. The new Obot case du jour is Ankeny v. Daniels which claims that Minor's definition of NBC left it open as to WHO could be a natural-born citizen other than those born in the country to citizen parents. It's a false assumption because it ignores that the Minor court explored every known permutation and possible combination of parentage and birth location criteria for defining the different classes of citizenship.
We'll put that issue aside for now and focus on how the language is sufficient to the cause. The best way to show this, IMO, is by using a simple analogy with a very visual theme. First: Here's the exact language from Minor v. Happersett:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
For an analogy to be effective and accurate, we must emulate this language and use it in a similar manner. "Natural-born citizen" is a specific type of citizen. Natural born modifies the noun citizen, so we need a noun for our analogy and a modifier that acts upon that noun in a similar way. Some people might like to use cats and dogs or apples and oranges, but I think we need something that can be modified in a very specific way with a clearly defined meaning, thus I came up with the shape of a triangle, so let's plug that in:
At common mathematical law, with the nomenclature known by geometrists, it was never doubted that all polygons with three equal sides and equal vertex angles are triangles. These are the regular triangles, or equilateral triangles, as distinguished from cones and pyramids. Some experts go further and include as triangles all shapes without reference to the number of sides. As to this class there are doubts, but never to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now that all shapes composed of three equal sides with equal vertex angles are triangles."
In this analogy, a polygon that doesn't consider the number of sides might be a triangle, but to solve the doubts, the number of sides need to be counted. In order to be an equilateral triangle (analogous with how to be a natural-born citizen), then the rest of the criteria have to be applied: equal sides and equal vertex angles ... with that being analogous to born in the country to citizen parents. Three sides MIGHT be a triangle the same way born in the country might be a citizen, but the other criteria has to be included to meet the more specific classifications of equilateral triangles and natural-born citizens.
A lot of people, such as yourself, are blissful in their ignorance. I’m here to educate and with you, I’ll take all the time that’s needed.
As long as we can disagree in a civil manner, I’ve got no problem with that.
This is fascinating. Someone who specializes in hit-and-run, snarky, deflective posts insists on a “civil manner”??? Really???
You wobbly attempts remind me of that pig, Bob Beckel. Is that you, Bob?
Leo Donofrio, Esq. has a different take on the British common law as it relates to the US Constitution:
“There is a fundamental distinction between natural law in the international community, and natural law under the English common law.
Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils.
Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the King’s castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents weren’t Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was God’s monarch on Earth. This is not “natural law” to anyone who wasn’t Christian.
The English common law’s uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of “natural-born subject” can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with “natural-born citizen”. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment.”
Also, I cannot find the term “natural born” anywhere in the 14th amendment. Can you point it out to me?
I guess if you start with a misreading of the words, any analogy you come up with is likely to be flawed. That you deny or can't see the flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.
Perhaps you have a point.
I shall tone the sarcasm down.
It's already been proven that state and U.S. citizenship laws contradicted British common law in several instances (e.g., not all Black and Native American children born in the U.S. were provided birthright citizenship until the late 19th century at the earliest). And as far as the 14th Amendment I'll refer you to what the drafters, the Senate Judiciary Committee, say it means:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe
We all know Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth. The DNC openly admitted Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his non-U.S. citizen father. The only conclusion we can draw from your claims otherwise is either that you're willfully choosing to remain ignorant, or you're deliberately spreading disinformation to cover for a Constitutionally ineligible president.
I guess if you accuse other people of misreading words, then any analogy you don't like can be incorrectly dismissed as flawed. That you deny or can't see that there's no flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.
It is certain that Kleon made more in his own mind of his reply’s force of logical weight than any other sentient being would be able to. The reason is indeed the “14th”, in its actual wording and in its recorded contemporaneous legislative intent.
Yet I must tender an affection to your good riposte to his reply. That is one must consider how and who establishes by what rules or customs it is determined that one “owes allegiance”.
In Obama's case, the Democratic National Committee already gave us the answer to that on their Fight The Smears website: The British Nationality Act of 1948.
British Nationality Act, 1948
Allegiance is the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to their respective sovereign or government.
Thanks!
I have the official Natural Law and British common law (by way of suggestion from Blackstone) reason ready to go. But I’m a sandbagger in this instant discussion, I’ll wait in the shadows for another reply and then “wack!”
"Ha Ha I'm an Illogical bore", these are the two sentences. How many shots did it take to make them the same for you?.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Yesh...
That shirtenly does worksh...
I like this game, Ma River! I won’t be able to play tonight, since I have to work tomorrow; and I’m out of Jameson, so I hope Jim Beam rye will do. I’ll work on those two, while you work on these:
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
“Only these were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
For a bonus round, try these:
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of two parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
You got it La La Boglical!!! Check it out !!! The Jim Beam Rye is even better!!! I can take two sentence with completely different meaning and they are now the same!!!
Ruth Bladder Gutsberg must be reading with shots of Jim Beam!!! I finaly understand the modern constitionalist!!!
And my mortgage has droppd from 1000 a month to 100 a month, and my girlfriend is actualy my wife!!
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
“Among a variety of others classes, these were also natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
For a bonus round, try these:
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of a parent who was a citizen became themselves, upon their birth, a citizen also.”
Interesting because AFAIK, "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" would make one a native born citizen, not a natural born citizen. 2/3 citizenship is derived from paternal lineage and 1/3 from maternal.
Why would the framers make the distinction between NBC specifically for Presidential eligibility? Why not just say "citizen"? Why do you suppose the bureau of vital statistics, to this day, requires birthplace of parents on birth certificates? If one is a citizen simply because they were birthed on US soil, what is the need for parent's birthplace information on the child's birth certificate?
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.