Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH
[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.
Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
This is the worst SCOTUS fan-fiction I’ve ever read. Granted, it’s the only SCOTUS fanfic I’ve read, but it’s pretty awful.
Not worth getting into an emotional argument with you, but I will point out that it wasn't until 1924 that Women could pass on citizenship at all. Prior to that time, citizenship was only passed through the father, and the legal concept which applied was called "Partus Sequitur Patrem".
I will also acquaint you with what James Madison had to say on this point.
You mean ignored. Yeah, it was ignored.
If this were true, they would have used the "NBC" term. They didn't.
Rubio’s parents were in the US with permisson of the US govt, therefore this clause would make Rubio, and Jindal likewise given the same with his parents, naturally born.
I would argue that it is not the fact that his parents were here with permission that would make him natural born, for the children of Ambassadors, the same condition is met, yet their children are not citizens at all.
No, I would argue that the defining characteristic is that the parents are here with (at least)the intention of being citizens. (As in Perkins v Elg.)
The condition of being a "natural" citizen at birth is that when the child is born, it is subject to the laws of no other country; That no other country has any recognizable claim upon the child.
This is not just some abstract point. In times of war, if a nation claims a person under either Jus Soli (Such as England) or Jus Sanguinus (such as France) then that person can be made to fight in that nation's armed forces against us.
Had Castro been overthrown, and the Subsequent government of Cuba used the Jus Sanguinus system of citizenship, they would be able to claim Marco Rubio as a citizen of Cuba, and compel him to fight in their armed forces, against us if necessary.
I am casting him a bone here in regards to the notion that his parents had intended to be citizens. Others will say they had to have BEEN citizens to sever all claims on the child from another country. Just some things to think about.
It is not just about his loyalty to this country. It is about other nation's claims to it. Some nations base their citizenship laws on descent from the father. (France.) Some nations base their citizenship upon being born within their borders. (England) There have been times in the past where people were arrested and prosecuted for treason because they chose one side or the other during a war.
French citizens who happened to be born in England have been charged with Treason. The fact that they were French, and chose to be French, under French law made no difference to the English at all. They were ENGLISH according to English law, and therefore they were Traitors.
Can your son be compelled to fight in another nation's army? If the answer is yes, then you may now see how he might not be a "natural" citizen of the United States. Natural citizens of the United States cannot be claimed by another country for any reason. They are completely and totally U.S. Citizens, and U.S. Citizens alone.
It's over. This stuff is going nowhere.
That doesn't mean it never will. If we persevere, it may be that someday people will understand the topic correctly. This topic thread demonstrates what I have always suspected all along. SCOTUS hasn't got a clue. They truly do not understand the meaning of this term because they have never bothered to study it.
As someone pointed out above, Who would expect them to? It has very few occasions throughout history in which it might be in Dispute. Chester A Arthur, Charles Evan Hughes, George Romney, and Barack Hussein Obama.
Two of them never made it past elections, so there was no need for a court to ever bother looking at it. In the Case of Chester A Arthur, no one brought suit, and in the Case of Barack Obama, no one was allowed to bring suit.
I say we get the correct message out there, and we just keep repeating it until everyone accepts it as correct. The Courts will eventually follow.
he did not want to put himself in the position of having to recuse himself from an Obama Natural Born Citizen case, by taking a side on it, before a decision is to be made.
what a jerk the author is.
***********************************************************************
Spot on Vaquero.
God forbid that a judge might have to explain the meaning of a legal term. I would have thought it should be a mundane component of being a judge, and irrelevant to the disposition of any future case. Should the meaning of the term change by then?
Wong Kim Ark does not use the term "NBC." Therefore it does not decide "NBC." (It wouldn't decide it anyway. Courts may not redefine existing constitutional terms. )
And this is the salient point. I argue firstly, the courts do not know what is the correct meaning of the term. They can study law for decades without needing to know this, so most of them don't. Secondly, even if they knew it correctly, they would regard it as a legal technicality which isn't serious enough to warrant the overturning of an election. Thirdly, they are afraid to touch this because it will put them into a predicament which would demonstrates their previous incompetence.
The Supreme court has created a fake right to abortion. What's ignoring a two hundred year old technicality to them?
Sorry but if I’m supposed to choose between Antonin Scalia and Larry Klayman over who has a better understanding and knowledge of the Constitution then I’m going with Justice Scalia every time.
Bunk
Have you checked under your bed lately ?
I realize you are incapable of understanding WKA. That doesn’t mean the courts are similarly handicapped. It is excruciatingly clear to any rational mind.
If someone doubts me, let them read it for themselves:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
And, the English language is my specialty...
They didn't spell out "The right to keep and bear arms" either, and it only took 200+ years before a court finally understood it correctly. The constitution wasn't intended to be a dictionary. They used terms which were understood to them at the time. The meaning to us can be ascertained by looking at where the founders got their terms.
This is what James Madison said about your above comment.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
James Madison Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787
That’s nice, if not a bit off subject, unless we are in 9th grade English Class..
You mean the common law that says we owe perpetual allegiance to the King? I kinda think they overturned that with something called "THE F*CKING WAR OF INDEPENDENCE!" British subjectship law no longer applied, though I could be mistaken about this.
“What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
James Madison Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787
The gerundologists who visit this page are laughing at you...
Right on the first part, wrong on the Second. SCOTUS does not want to address this at all. Addressing it signifies they might have made a mistake, and the attitude of the Supreme Court is....
"Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision."
That is true. The courts are wrong. It is because they are ignorant. If we make the correct understanding pervasive enough, eventually they will look at the evidence, and eventually they will correct their ignorance.
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.