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.
“I don’t know what you think you see in this excerpt, but I’m pretty sure it’s not what’s actually there.”
It expressely states that a citizen and a NBC are not the same thing.
“Anyone who points to the US Code to claim they are a born citizen is naturalized at birth.””
What’s really funny is this:
Another way to say ‘naturalized at birth’ is ‘natural-born’.
You cannot be one but not the other.
Then you're agreeing with me. Qualifying for president is not open for all citizens. It's not a matter of simple citizenship status that's at issue, but the specific character of citizenship that allows one to be eligible. 'As much a citizen' in no way means 'equal to.'
Your fruit analogy is flawed, and I think you know why.
No, it's not flawed at all. But I do know why you don't want to accept it.
There are various biological criteria for being considered a fruit. The most basic are both to be a plant and to contain your own seeds. Laymen think of them also as being plump, sweet, and edible. Likewise, the most basic criteria for being as much a citizen as an NBC is that you be both a citizen on the same plane as naturalized citizens AND be eligible for the presidency.
Nonsense. A 'citizen of the United States' is as much a citizen as an NBC, but the former is NOT eligible for president according to the Constitution. A 14th amendment citizen by birth is according the Constitution ONLY a citizen of the United States. Yes, as much a citizen, but still not eligible for president. WKA affirms this. Your overkill on the fruit analogy fails miserably.
I don't misrepresent; that's what you do. And a picture of a little 'WOSG' kissing the Obama logo is an accurate description of your postings here. And BTW, you whining is what's lame.
Bwah???? You said, and I quote, "It says, or implies, that they have equal citizenship status ..." Sorry, but that is putting words in their mouths.
Yes, I am, because we are involved in different inquiries: his as to whether Ark was a citizen, mine as to whether he was an NBC.
IOW, you're imaginging things that just were never expressed. WTG.
Of course there’s no need when citizenship is established by means other than those provided for in that amendment.
The other means of citizenship is what establishes natural born citizenship, which means the 14th amendment does not.
Everybody and his mother is aware, and always have been, of parentage having an impact.
Right, it produces natural born citizenship for those born in the country. The 14th amendment does not produce natural born citizenship. You've successfully argued yourself into my corner. Thanks!
I didn't say he was hiding his father's citizenship. He was trying to direct people toward the place of birth, which evidently he can't legally prove.
“Oh yes, English was the world wide dominant language & law of the globe.”
No, but it was dominant in British colonies, which were ruled under British law, with local laws developed along English lines, with largely English inhabitants, who spoke English, read English history, law, and philosophy, and shared a common culture with the British. Aside from that, though, they had little in common.
“That’s why the Natives spoke French & most all the youth were taught in French.”
So happens that the revolution fell between the Latin and English eras of international Western culture, when French was the common intellectual tongue. Also so happens that the idea men of the revolution, when they weren’t planters, shopkeepers, sea merchants, bankers, clerics, and waht-have-you, were lawyers and politicians. Or, more appropriately, lawyer-politicians.
Guess what lawyer-politicians in the British Empire of the 18th century primarily read? They dabbled in the classics, yes. Were familiar with religious texts, of course. But what would be most conducive to their profession? That’s right: law books. English lawbooks. Also, history. Specifically, legal and political history. Preferably of the Whig persuasion. They also read philosophy and political theory, also preferably in English (though not exclusively) and of the Whig variety.
We’re talking Locke, Sidney, Milton, Harrington, Macauly (Mrs.), Camden, Clarendon, Coke, Speed, Burnett, Rapin, Burgh, Gordon, Hume, Montagu, Montesquieu, Neville, Oldmixon, Puffendorf, Tyrrel, Guthrie, Dalrymple, Sharp, Raleigh, need I go on? THIS is wherefrom the revolutionary ideology derived, at least among the men who made it happen legally and politically.
“FYI, the Saxon’s didn’t originate from England, many of them were Normandy French which included my Hay & Stokes ancestors.”
Yes, I know. They came from northern Germania, invading the British Isles circa 450 AD. The Founders thought the common law system started with them, but it probably didn’t. Normans didn’t jump over, en masse, for another 500 years.
“Roman & Greecian law was very well planted in their laws, both of which came from the same core common law laid out in the Old Testament books of Moses.”
Here’s where I can’t say you’re wrong, but in a way that isn’t very helpful. Because, as you well know, if Roman and Greek culture and the Christian religion impacted American jurisprudence (and they did), they did so after having passed through English bowels, chronologically speaking. Being good Enlightenment students, they were always rediscovering things. I don’t want to downplay the role played by old new ideas among these assiduous Enlightenment scholars. But whatever they found that England had lost is small potatoes compared to what their culture gave them without their position.
Look, I’m not saying English culture was the ONLY influence. Obviously that’s not true, since we all know not all of them were of English stock, nor even were all who were taken by English ideas. But please, maintain some perspective. See the forest for the trees.
“’That’s a crock. The 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was only ‘a citizen,’ and the 1939 Supreme Court conclude Elg was a ‘natural born citizen.’”
No matter how many times you repeat it, that will still never be the damning evidence you think it is.
What I stated below is correct and accurate:
- - - - -
"To: Tublecane
That's a crock. The 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was only "a citizen," and the 1939 Supreme Court conclude Elg was a "natural born citizen."
The Supreme Court did not willy-nilly make these two different holdings. SCOTUS didn't by accident leave out the adjective words "natural born" in describing Ark as 'a citizen'. There is a difference in the two cases and why they made two different conclusions for these two appellees."
- - - -
Elg and other subsequent rulings make it obvious that today's SCOTUS would declare someone with birthright citizenship under the 14thA to be a natural-born citizen.
It's not obvious. Likely your coveted, Obama, activist judges Sotomayor and Kagan who would gladly make crap up, however, I doubt the SCOTUS majority would see it your way.
Sorry, but this isn't a statement that can be categorized or limited to ideological bogeymen.
Once you do the research though, it’s obvious Obama does fit the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC. Citizen at birth = natural-born citizen.
And you're proving your one who does NOT know the definition. 'All children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. These are the natives or natural-born citizens.' Nothing here or anywhere else from the SCOTUS says natural-born citizen = citizen at birth. Instead, that is failed connect-the-dots delusion.
Please, take your meds. That’s beyond looney on so many levels its self-satire.
Translated: 'I can't refute this point, so I will resort to pointless ad hominems.'
A court has looked properly at Wong Kim Ark and NBC - a more complete view of what they said, taking away the desire to misinterpret in order to get to a pre-defined conclusion, and you get ... this ...
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance -of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the kings allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,;-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin;s Case, or the „Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
*****
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality. Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality. The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such persons birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien. „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien. And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a mans birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown. Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.
Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtiss dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen. It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
No matter how many times you deny it, it will not change the facts:
"The 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was only ‘a citizen,’ and the 1939 Supreme Court concluded Elg was a ‘natural born citizen.’” "
“At best, Dred Scott v Sanford SCOTUS decision could have ruled that owning slaves was unconstitutional”
Since they ruled him unable to bring suit because not a citizen because not a full human, they could just as easily deem him human, and therefore a citizen. One thing to bear in mind is that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were necessary partly because of the Dred Scott mistake.
“Tortured. Equal citizens. NOT equally Natural Born Citizens.”
Ugh. How can you be an equal citizen if you are unequal in respect to a privilege determined by citizenship? Indeed, the only privilege that exists between classes of citizenship? In other words, how can you be an equal citizen and an unequal citizen at the same time?
If that's so, then why hasn't that supposed majority agreed to hear a case that would give them the opportunity to decide the issue? They've had at least a couple such opportunities (if not more), and in each case, they've refused to hear it without comment.
FYI, it doesn't even take a majority to have a case be heard. All it takes is four, so it looks like there's not even four justices who see it your way, let alone a majority.
I'd even take it a step further and be willing to place money on the proposition that there isn't even one. That is, I'd be willing to bet a large sum that if the court did agree to hear an eligibility challange to Obama, on the grounds of his father not being a citizen, it would rule in Obama's favor 9-0.
Unfortuantely, I seriously doubt the court will ever agree to hear such a case, since every single justice would think completely devoid of merit, so sadly, I won't be able to make such easy money at Birther expense.
“The Language of Liberty by J.C.D. Clark; Cambridge University copyright 1994 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=ofZiHRqLJRYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+language+of+liberty&hl=en&ei=uT7kTN6fG-SInAensbDUDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false )
Of course you will have to order it through DC like I had to. Or a more probable scenario would be the one that Red Steel has pointed out, you are one of these kinds of students of American history:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=919#919
“It expressely states that a citizen and a NBC are not the same thing.”
But only by virtue of conditions, as you ought to know, which could not possibly exist today. Namely, being born before the ratification of the Constitution.
“It expressely states that a citizen and a NBC are not the same thing.”
Oh, and I should add that I took you to refer to that class of people born in the territory that became the U.S. as being distinct from NBCs. Phrasing it as “a citizen and a NBC are not the same thing” is fruitless, since it’s entirely uncontroversial that naturalized citizens are citizens and not NBCs.
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.