Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The Supreme Court found Mr. Wong to be a CITIZEN!
The decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark
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 domicile 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.
Yes, and the entire rationale of his CITIZENSHIP stemmed from the fact of his qualifying to be a NATURAL BORN citizen.
In other words, they declared him to be a CITIZEN, at the very end, because they had FIRST found him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN during the course of their deliberations.
This is not unclear. It is QUITE CLEAR to anyone who actually understands the case.
It was even clear to the minority, who objected that the ruling would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to run for President.
It is not denied by any competent legal authority. It is the reason why Obama was ruled by multiple courts to be a natural born citizen. It is the reason why the US Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to even LOOK at appeals from ANY of those cases.
It is only denied by those who desperately want it not to be true, by those who really aren't acquainted with or misunderstand the facts and the law, and by those who have consumed massive amounts of mind-altering drugs.
I know it’s an effort, but you might wish to click through and actually read and study the referenced link.
Nowhere in the ruling was Wong Kim Ark affirmed a ‘natural born Citizen’.
You are correct.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] [which most definitely included Wong Kim Ark] IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR [which he wasn't,] OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE [which he wasn't,] OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN [which he wasn't.]
If fact this is your opinion.
In fact this is the decision:
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 domicile 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.
By the way, a little tip for you: insults do not strengthen your argument.
TTYL I've got things to do this evening.
He obviously has nothing, because he already refused to talk with Zullo.
How msny times did aunt Zetuni vote? Even once would be one too many times for her.
That is assuming he was born outside the country. If he was born in the US, his birth here and his mother's American citizenship could have made him a citizen at birth.
I'm not sure of the details any more. It's all very fuzzy to me at this point, but if you want to make a strong case against "anchor babies" somebody who had an American mother wouldn't be the best place to start.
You seem to want to play silly semantical games. Obviously, a true statement can be true within a particular context, or can have limited exceptions.
Drinking water is good for you.
Exercise is good for you.
Protein is good for you.
Democrats are liberals, and Republicans are conservatives.
All of the above are true statements. At the same time, they are true within a particular scope, or have limited exceptions. Drink enough water within a limited period of time, and it will kill you. Too much exercise can injure your body rather than help it. Eat only protein, and it's likely to ruin your health. And while the latter statement is generally true as well, a conservative being elected as a Democrat is not impossible, and we all know there are liberal Republicans.
This issue is to simple. That is why congress and the courts won’t touch it. Perhaps that is why the founders didn’t try to explain it in more detail.
Right on all counts. Because in the Founders' day and on up throughout American history, up until people started obfuscating the issue 4 years ago, practically everyone has always understood that born in America, citizen at birth = natural born citizen.
It is indeed exceedingly simple.
You state: If he was born in the US, his birth here and his mother’s American citizenship could have made him a citizen at birth.
A Citizen yes, but it wouldn’t make him a natural born Citizen which Article 2 Section 1 calls for to be president.
I find it quite peculiar, given the rigorous economy with words for which the Framers of the Constitution were justifiably famous, that some believe “born citizen” and “natural-born citizen” were intended to be terms of art with identical meaning.
I find it even more peculiar that these presumably interchangeable terms of art are taken to have different meanings, depending upon geographic circumstance on the one hand and circumstance of familial relation on the other, conceptually combining the two and yet those individuals actually possessing both qualities were purportedly not deemed worthy of note.
Linguistically and logically, it’s assumed that the greatest, most learned legal minds of the era used two terms interchangeably for not just one but two conditions, while leaving yet another condition so completely ill-defined as to have never coined a term for it.
Very uncharacteristic, that. You’d think they’d have been more precise. Some of us understand that they were more precise, even rigorous, with terms for all three conditions consistently applied.
But, we don’t know what we’re talking about, say those who insist upon equating two different terms and applying them in inconsistent ways, while rendering some closely related, pertinent states wholly unacknowledged.
I hope Zullo and Arpaio have not given up.
They haven’t. They have some good stuff about to come out.
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.