Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Anyone who can read and who is honest would see that Justice Gray distinguished NBC from 14th amendment citizenship by birth when he cited Minor v. Happersett, emphasizing that this decision said that when it construed the 14th amendment it did NOT say who were natural-born citizens. Second, they gave the holding of Minor which said Virginia Minor was found to be a citizen by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents. If they believed the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, which only relied on birth in the territory, then there would have been no need to mention that Minor was born to citizen parents. Further, the other Supreme Court precedent is from Luria v. United States where it cited Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark in specifically defining presidential eligibility. That eligibility is based on defining NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." If the 14th amendment defined NBC, then because of the equal protection clause, naturalized citizens would also have to be eligible for office. This is why Luria did NOT cite Wong Kim Ark. It cited Minor because this would exempt naturalized citizens from being eligible. That's 27 Supreme Court justices who agreed that NBC is ALL children born in the country to citizen parents. There is no higher legal precedent. NONE.

Yes, Wong Kim Ark used jus soli to define 14th amendment birth citizenship, but it used permanent residence and domicil of the parents to satisfy the subject clause. Obama fails to meet this criteria because his mama's permanent domicil became Kenya the moment she married Barack Sr., who not a resident alien.

159 posted on 09/01/2012 10:56:42 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

You are another nut, which is why you cannot understand LOSING every case. Unlike the courts, you cannot understand single sentences, let alone paragraphs and pages. YOU will not be convinced by anything.

There is a reason why every state, every member of Congress and every court is in agreement - and no, it is not a giant conspiracy. Folks need to read WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html), and decide for themselves. Those with functioning brain cells will then know why all 50 states, every member of Congress & all the courts are in agreement. And that will leave only one reason why you are not...


163 posted on 09/02/2012 5:41:31 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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