Really?
can you even tell me what law school he went to?
St. John’s University, School of Law
I would just like people to explain why I should pay any attention to Harlan1196
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.
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.”
I would suggest that the court was running low on ink and the Justice's hand may have started to cramp. So completing the sentence without “natural born” inserted was simply a matter of economy. Writing with a feather was difficult and messy, so allowing readers to fabricate their own translations was preffered. The writer knew that Justices such as Bladder Gutsburgh could construe any meaning in any sentence, (just as we have proved with our scientific Jim Beam test) so just getting the general topic on paper was the most important task at hand.
Sentences have meaning. They are basic constructs of thoughts. But unfortunately, these sentences were written by people 200 years ago, and most them white men. So we can dismiss most of what they have written as racist, bigoted and homophobic gibberish. After further review, I am convinced that leaving the "Natural born" out of that phrase was also an attempt to smear the first black president.
And your wife went along with that? What was she drinking???
"You either do not have the intellectual capability to comprehend and contribute to discussions on the Constitution and the Law, or you are not permitted to do so (for reasons unstated). You therefore must rely upon authorities to tell you what is the proper way of thinking about the Constitution and the Law, and also for any analysis, interpretation and result of the application of Constitution and Law.And you must choose among only those authorities I approve of.
No - I would just like people to explain why I should pay any attention to Leo. He has no law experience - can you even tell me what law school he went to?
No founding era Supreme Court judge went to Law School either.
They weren’t professional poker players or wannabe rock stars either. They were educated pillars of the community.
So can you point out a single legal accomplishment by Leo before he saw the potential $$$$ in the birth certificate movement?
Excellent. Now we know why Ankeny said that Minor only considered situations when BOTH parents were citizens. Drinking also explains why they botched their citation of Wong Kim Ark.
Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, ...
The men who wrote the Constitution had very little law school background. Only a few had “read” in Law at some college. All were self-taught, either in whole or part.
Why is it today that someone must be a certified “professional” with law degree, with standing before some Bar, to comment upon, to discuss EXPERTLY the Constitution and the Law? I will tell you there is no GOOD reason.
So what is his legal history? How successful cases? How many publications? Help me understand why he is such a prominent Constitutional scholar.
He might be all you think he is - it is just that details seem scarce. Be is almost Obama like in that regard.
What makes you qualified to question his credentials? You’re too ignorant to understand that he graduated from a very prestigious university!
Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. What are you trying to tell me here?
As for Leo, I know enough to question a lawyer with no history and a unblemished record of failure when it comes to eligibility law suits.
Sorry, I respect success and accomplishments. How many losers do you really respect? That’s why I would.like some details about him. He is almost Obama-like when it comes to his past.
I never said anything about your hero, 0bot.
So why are you so impressed with prestigious law schools? I say it says nothing about their graduates - it where you end up that counts, not where you started. Harvard has created its share of failure’s. No doubt Leo’s school has too.
So what is his legal experience? That’s all I am asking. How can I judge him when there is nothing to judge?
Let’s try another tack - why do you respect his legal acumen?
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.