Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
No matter how hard you try to put words in Justice Gray's mouth, the his opinion does not put the word "only" in front of citizen, nor does it deny Ark is natural born.
In point of fact, as has been pointed out to you again and again, and as the Indiana appeals court pointed out as well, the argument leading up to his conclusions implies Ark was natural born.
Justice Gray, who wrote the WKA opinion, also cited this which shows a difference between a natural born child born in the country and a citizen "born in the country.":
"said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,...."
“What’s really funny is this:
Another way to say ‘naturalized at birth’ is ‘natural-born’”
That’s a really confusing way to put it. But, hey, what we’re dealing with as regards the native born is an automatic process that begins and ends in the exact moment of birth. Why can’t a similar process occur with blood babies? In the former case, I imagine a clipboarded bureaucrat adding my name to a list; in the latter, God nods his head.
"the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language"
The Hoosier Hillbilly court cites Minor's definition of NBC of being born in the country to citizen parents, but claims errantly, "the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens ..." Well, no the court in Minor said if you weren't born in the country of citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner. It said nothing about both parents being aliens.
The HH's trivialize Vattel (who has been cited in cases for 200 years) and original intent (of the authors of the 14th amendment): "they [the plaintiffs] primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century."
“’As much a citizen’ in no way means ‘equal to.’”
Then I no longer understand English.
“But I do know why you don’t want to accept it.”
No you don’t, since it’s because it’s flawed.
“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”
If they’re not eligible then they’re NOT as much a citizen. For eligibility is determined by citizenship status (among other things).
“14th amendment citizen by birth is according the Constitution ONLY a citizen of the United States.”
Not only, they just don’t happen to say explicitly that they are that and more.
“Yes, as much a citizen, but still not eligible for president.”
That doesn’t make any sense. If you are as much a citizen as a naturalized citizen, then you can’t necessarily be president (allowing that you can be as much and more). If you are as much a citizen as a NBC, then you must be eligible.
“Your overkill on the fruit analogy fails miserably.”
Overkill? Don’t know why you use that term. All I did was add one little step, taking it from inapplicable to appropriate.
I pointed out the facts in his 1898 opinion, and the facts about the 1939 Elg's SCOTUS opinion. You're just overly delusional to think Obama is a natural born citizen.
In point of fact, as has been pointed out to you again and again, and as the Indiana appeals court pointed out as well, the argument leading up to his conclusions implies Ark was natural born.
It has been pointed out time and time again that the Indiana appeals court "opinion" has been taken apart about 10 billions times showing how erroneous they are. That thing is not going to help Obama in the future.
“There’s no statement in WKA that equates what you call ‘born a citzen’ with natural born citizen”
Yes, there is. See ALkeny ruling:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
And WKA ruling:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
WKA ruling quotes legal scholar Dicey: “„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.”
They note also that:
“In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.”
then they say:
“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,”
and later say
“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.”
page 17 of above reference.
Clear points - ‘natural-born’ means someone who acquires that status at birth.
Further, arguments that claim that ‘jurisdiction’ should be read narrowly are PRECISELY what was the main point on which Wong Kim Ark rested. It was debated and determined that ‘jurisdiction’ as used in the 14th amendment did apply to aliens residents of the USA (they did not decide on illegal aliens, but legal resident aliens).
Case closed.
People born in the US are natural-born citizens and can run for President.
Look, you are flat-out, factually, and simply wrong. You refuse to acknowledge basic facts and logic. And repeated assertions of wrong things is what is your ideological bogeyman, a hallmark of the birther delusion.
Wong Kim Ark quotes Dicey:
“”Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.””
RIGHT THERE. A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ‘NATURAL-BORN’ MEANS. It’s in law dictionaries, it’s in legal treatises, its in Wong Kim Ark:
Natural-born is a simple term of art. A “natural-born subject” is one who became a subject at the time of birth.
A “natural-born citizen” is one who became a citizen at the time of birth.
VERY SIMPLE. So simple you’d have to be a kool-aid drinking birther not to understand it.
The district court in Wong Kim Ark declared and ruled tat WOng Kim Ark was a ‘natural-born citizen’ - and SCOTUS AFFIRMED the district court:
“The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)”
So the claim that ... “Nothing here or anywhere else from the SCOTUS says natural-born citizen = citizen at birth. “ ... is FALSE.
Attempts to prove the opposite is a failed connect-the-dots delusion.
The comment was directed at your partner in (Obama) crime who brought up if the Supreme Court of today hears a case concerning the 14th Amendment, that its intent and meaning at the time of its adoption where it made citizens by law were indeed also natural born citizens of the United States. And you should take Justice Thomas word that the judiciary is "Evading" the Obama eligibility cases
If the SCOTUS and the US Federal judiciary really thought that Obama was a natural born citizen, they would have gladly and easily put this issue to rest; their intransigence suggests otherwise.
I stand by “today’s SCOTUS would declare someone with birthright citizenship under the 14thA to be a natural-born citizen. “ The proof of what I say is in the ruling of Alkeny.
The ruling is clear, simple, solid ...
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
“Bwah???? You said, and I quote, ‘It says, or implies, that they have equal citizenship status ...’”
Oh, please. That’s what one little phrase implies, not what the final decision explicitly holds. When I say, “Never claimed there was,” I wasn’t including my interpretation of throwaway lines having little bearing on the outcome. I don’t rest on threads that thin. I don’t cherrypick quotes. Leave that to the birthers.
“you’re imaginging things that just were never expressed”
I’ve said over and over again that the court in Ark neither confirmed nor denied his NBC status. And so they didn’t. So what am I imagining? As expressed by who? Or perhaps am I imagining the absence of things that were expressed.
“The other means of citizenship is what establishes natural born citizenship, which means the 14th amendment does not.”
No, the other means is being born of citizen parents, which is part but not all of what constitutes a NBC. The existence of children born of citizen parents and their NBC status being reached without the aid of the 14th amendment in no way implies the 14th amendment is useless for establishing NBCs.
“Right, it produces natural born citizenship for those born in the country.”
Outside the country, too, I think.
“The 14th amendment does not produce natural born citizenship.”
Yes it does. Or, rather, it confirms what all along could have been NBCs.
“You’ve successfully argued yourself into my corner. Thanks!”
No, I haven’t. You have a logic deficiency.
“You said, and I quote, ‘It says, or implies, that they have equal citizenship status ...’ Sorry, but that is putting words in their mouths.”
By the way, altering “as much a citizen as” to “has equal citizenship status as” is not putting words in their mouths. It’s paraphrasing.
LOL! If the Supreme Court thought Obama was a natural born citizen, as I said, they would have gadly taken an eligibility case. They are "Evading" this case because of the possible adverse political ramifications, and the old "too big to fail" nonsense. One day soon, you may get your "wish" when the Supreme Court believe the 'Ripeness Doctrine' is in effect.
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.
It is that they are avoiding and evading just that. They don't want to hear the case on the "merits" because there is plenty of merit that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
“without their position”
Sorry, meant “without their permission.”
“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.’”
That’s Vattel, right? Ever pause to realize that, on its face, it does not apply since the 14th amendment, or at least since the Ark decision based on a certain interpretation thereof? Natives in the current U.S. are citizens, without regard to their parents’ citizenship status (though not without regard to their parents’ legal status). Why do you quote this with a straight face?
“Pretty good cut and paste job there.” Birthers have taught us well. Of course, rather than quote trivia, I am quoting the very court ruling you abuse with your repeated and redundant selective cut-n-pastes.
Go outside the few quotes you use, and you see that indeed the truth is simple and clear. Natural-born citizen = citizen at time of birth.
Key quotes:
“„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.”
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“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.”
“The 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was only ‘a citizen,’”
Your “only” is prejudicial. It implies they said he was nothing more than a citizen, whereas they actually said he was a citizen and made no determination on anything else. There is a difference.
Won Kim Ark was ruled a natural-born citizen by the district court, and SCOTUS upheld ... from the appellant brief:
“The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)”
So your claim that the 1898 Supreme Court concluded Won Ark was ‘only’ a citizen is really false, since for them to do that, they would have had to AFFIRMATELY state the difference and overrule the district court, which they DID NOT.
But since ‘natural-born’ simply means ‘citizen at birth’, the court had nothing to overrule or distinguish.
Either Won Kim Ark was a citizen at birth (aka ‘natural-born citizen’) or he was not. Won Kim Ark SCOTUS said he was.
So you stand by Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana as 'clear' and 'solid' jurisprudence. OK we got that. Now, don't go back on your word...
From their Footnote 14 of the Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana opinion:
-snip-
"For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant."
Oh, what do we have here WOSG??
We see that the Indiana Hillbillies actually understand and declare that 14th Amendment only naturalized persons to be citizens. What were you saying all over this thread WOSG? That Obama by virtue of the 14th Amendment is a natural born citizen, however, the Indiana Hillbillies Appeals Court also say that the dichotomy "is irrelevant."
We see that Indiana gotta declare laws irrelevant to give Obama the appearance of being an NBC. LoL.
“You are sadly mistaken on ALL points. See..
‘The Language of Liberty by J.C.D. Clark’”
I looked your book up on Amazon, and here’s the sort of thing I find in the table of contents:
“Constitutional innovations and their English antecedents,”
“Sovereignty in political theory from Justinian to the English jurists,”
“Natural law vs. common law: the polarization of a common idiom”
“Covenantors, Presbyterians, and Whigs: Resistance to the Stuarts in England and Scotland”
“The Rights of Englishmen, the rhetoric of slavery, and rebellions in Britain and America”
I don’t see much on “international law,” beside perhaps “Transatlantic ties and their failure” and “The Commonwealth paradigm.” There’s a lot on religion, which I downplay but acknowledge. Not much on natural law, either. Seems chalk full, however, of what I’ve been harping on.
“Common law,” “English jurists,” “the rights of Englishmen,” “Whigs.” Even if this book brings my subjects up merely to debunk them, it does reference them. Which speaks to their dominance of the literature, from scholarly tomes to wikipedia. Makes me wonder why you dismiss them so easily and repeatedly.
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.