Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“Ah..you brought out the word spurious..which means not natural..not genuine”
“Not genuine, yes. In other words, fake, false. But unnatural? Thats a stretch, and so is your attempt at comedy.”
Spurious: bastard, illegitimate; the children of a Roman citizen,(male or female) and a foreigner were considered spurious, no better than a slave. They were deemed Hybrids.
The children of a Roman citizen and a foreigner were also called mongrels.
genuine: natural, born in us natural not spurious.
This information is obtained from Roman history passed down to the Founders. The books are listed in a Congressional Journal dated 1783.
Obama cannot possibly be a natural born citizen.
The Framers looked to the ancient republics..not the crown of England, to help them form the government.
Obama is not a kindren American..he is a kindren Kenyan. Americans are finally waking up and realizing what he is....a foreigner who is an illegal President.
There are a lot of people way smarter than me...but I can read enough to know there is something very wrong going on in this country. If we do not wake up to this reality..we will lose it all.
Jefferson warned of this..”they will distort our laws”.
You are here to distort our laws..and I want to know why?
FYI.. if you don't have the respect or appreciation of those that drafted the 14th, then you have nothing. Analysis from your posts suggests you are the later, therefore your arguments are worthless because they are not grounded in the truth, but pure progressive obfuscation.
You tuble are beyond help because if as you say, “subject to the jurisdiction” means merely soil, there wouldn't have even been a need to put in the 14th. Even Obama says “words have meaning” & where the law is concerned, redundancy is frowned upon. If soil was the main factor in determining citizenship of those born in the US regardless of parentage, then the 14th would have read:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States”
Love it!
“The constitution says what it says. I defer to the constitution.”
If you *really* did that, you wouldnt substitute your own incorrect definition for ‘natural-born citizen’ over what the constitution, including the 14th amendment, says.
Equating it to “citizen parents on US soil” is found NOWHERE in the Constitution, US law, or court rulings. Nowhere.
Yeah it may happen one day trollBot as that would be a day of dread for trolls, and you have no idea if Supreme Court justices have read Apuzzo's brief or not.
Just because evaded is the favorite birtherbot term for every court ruling that goes against them doesnt make it reality.
That's exactly what they are doing when you see stupid and silly court opinions that state the Obama eligibility issue was "twittered" and "massaged" so we can "all" conclude Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president.
Yes, I knew exactly what I was writing & what the words of this discussion mean:
native = Pertaining to the place of birth
natural = produced by nature, according to the life
born = brought forth,to be jirodnced or brought into life
Now, as I said before, when the soil can conceive & give birth(produce a child naturally), then you will have a solid case. But, not only this, you go on to ignore the connective part of the fundamental rule which is:
§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties
You see, when you edit important words out of a sentence as Gray did in WKA, you loose all credibility & standing for your argument
spelling correction:
native = Pertaining to the place of birth
natural = produced by nature, according to the life
born = brought forth, to be introduced or brought into life
“If you believe that then that means any radical terrorist could come here, pop out potential presidents.”
Terrorists could, with few reservations, be placed within the traditional understanding of people not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law, given the War on Terror. There’s alaways the possibility that a child could grow up as a citizen without us ever knowing that its parents were terrorists, but what are you gonna do?
I should have said with A few reservations. The same reservations which have caused us to try certain terrorists in civilian court, providing them with the same protections afforded others who are subject to U.S. laws.
NO, ElG WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE SHE HAD CITIZEN PARENTS who verbally renounced their foreign citizenship before they took their oath of US citizenship. Elg was born in the United States after her parents were naturalized.
The holding in the 1939 SCOTUS case Perkins v. Elg.
A "holding 1) n. any ruling or decision of a court. "
The IMPORTANCE of the court stating this in her case and not WKA was NOT due to status of her parents,
Oh yes it was, it is the very reason why the Supreme Court "affirmed" (as seen above) the lower court ruling that she was a natural born citizen.
And
The Supreme Court Justice Gray in his opinion cited stare decisis about why that Wong Kim Ark was NOT a natural born citizen, and he only "affirmed" Ark to be only a citizen.
Sure you listen. The bottom line is that they took the erroneous NBC statement out in the next Naturalization Act because it was a mistake, which it would never be seen any US statute ever again.
“Theyre called anchor babies.”
Anchor babies are citizens from birth. Citizens from birth are natural born citizens. Therefore, anchor babies can be president.
“Natural Born Citizens do not become so by statute.”
You’re calling the 14th amendment a “statute.” Okay, then what is Article 2, section 1? What is the whole Constitution, for that matter?
Why is it that birthers imagine the United States of America is somehow naturally occuring? It didn’t exist before there was a man-made Constitution. People didn’t become citizens of it by an act of God. There is no such thing as a non-”statutory” U.S. citizen.
I cannot believe anyone holds otherwise. What, do you think God wrote our constitution?
God didn't write it, but he guided and inspired the founders of this nation to write the US Constitution. Natural born is a truism. The natural born citizen clause is a reference to natural or God's law. It is an immutable law and is not artificial as are man made laws.
“The historical annotation is pretty clear this Amendment was focused on former American slaves, not foreign citizens.”
The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to smooth over trade barriers between states, not for the federal government to legislate on every conceivable aspect of human life that somehow indirectly brushes against commerce. Some of those laws, like the health insurance mandate, are obviously a misinterpretation. But most of IC laws, even conservatives agree, are reasonably justified by the language of the Constitution. One man’s “regulation” is another man’s administer, command, rule, dominate, etc.
Point is, plain language is ultimately more important than the motivation behind and the hoped for result of various laws.
“Natural born Citizens arent made by courts or statutes. They are made by citizen parents on US soil.”
Who decreed that to be so? If not a law, then what? Nature? God? Well, God just appeared to me and told me soil babies are natural citizens. So phooey.
It doesnt matter what the framers of the 14th amendments intentions were. It only matters what the amendment says, in plain English
Bingo!
For your info, your new found friend Ms. 'Bingo' got the big ZOT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~VADoc1980/
Buh bye FakeDoc1980 you troll.
What it comes to is you as a conservative are making the Leftist argument”
Not at all. I simply go by what the Constitution actually says.
“using leftist principles”
What principles would those be? Strict constructionism?
“There are laws. They are for me to control you and do not apply to me.”
Huh?
“When leftists make those implied claims conservatives protest.”
What implied claims?
“turns it ALL into Us vs Them power and nothing more. Constitution be damned. Exceptionalism be damned. Principle be damned. Power is everything.”
What the heck are you talking about? Seriously, I have no clue.
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.