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.
“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”
The Judiciary HAS put it to rest:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
If you were born a citizen, you can run for President.
Case closed.
Wow. Talk about self delusion. Have fun with your fantasy.
The Indiana ruling trivialized nothing.
What was trivial was the plaintiff’s argument. They ignored that vast ocean of actual law and legal history on citizenship for a few droplets of misquoted and mis-understood argumentation, NONE of which was actual law.
Insulting a court for being right only shows your childish ignorance.
What can you say about your own bias and ignorance when you fail to acknowledge this ...
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.
Yeah really - they did and it is not false. We don't see any modifying words to "citizen" in Wong Kim Ark's holding now do we? You know, the missing modifying words like "natural born" modifying the word "citizen". It's not there. Ask Casper if he see ghost words, or maybe Gray wrote 'natural born' in disappearing ink.
And oh and yeah, your "precious" and silly Indiana opinion is full of holes and omissions as I pointed out in 959.
“They are ‘Evading’ this case because of the possible adverse political ramifications, and the old ‘too big to fail’ nonsense.”
Unfortunately, running from a case for its explosive possibilities and ignoring a case for its frivolity are indistinguishable, both consisting of evasion.
“it does not apply since the 14th amendment” = it does not apply according to the 14th amendment
You find those 1960 era jets flying into Nairobi International yet?
The courts are evading nothing. They need a real case to deal with, not a crank case based on phony pseudo-reasoning that cant be held together. If it’s not a real case, they deliver a summary judgment to toss.
That is what has happened. The birther cases are so bad, so without merit, so far outside the bounds of reality, they get tossed.
The Indiana court did birthers a favor by bothering to explain in further detail why and how they (and you) are wrong. Why dont you listen to common sense and real law?
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2009/11/ind_decisions_r_34.html
Come now Tub, you're the king of "frivolity" You win the contest hands down.
Tublecane: Yes it does. Or, rather, it confirms what all along could have been NBCs.
Actually, on this I think edge919 is correct. If you read the Wong case, it is clear that the legal definition of natural born citizen was settled long before the 14th amendment was ratified: it was the same as in English common law. Any person born under the protection and allegience of the sovereign, which in the case of Britain was the King and in the case of the US was the Republic. That included children of citizens born abroad, as well as children born on US soil of free aliens living under US jurisdiction in friendship with the republic.
The 14th Amendemnt was thus not necessary to establish the natural-born status of Wong Kim Ark.
The only thing the 14th amendment changed was the citizenship status of people born as slaves. Prior to the amendment, under common law, they were not citizens, not even if their masters later freed them. That changed once the amendment was adopted. Now everyone born on US soil to parents under US jurisdiction is a natrual-born citizen, regardless of race or servitude status at the time of birth.
“’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.’”
“We see that the Indiana Hillbillies actually understand and declare that 14th Amendment only naturalized persons to be citizens”
Can you read? It does NOT say the 14th “only” naturalizes people.
“the Indiana Hillbillies Appeals Court also say that the dichotomy ‘is irrelevant.’”
Irrelevant for whom? Read your quote: “For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents)...” In other words, the difference between NBCs and naturalized is irrelevant for everything save being president.
You’re grasping at straws.
There it is in black in white in 959. Indiana admitted that the 14th Amendment only naturalized citizens. So we see you are still denying what your "lying eyes" are telling you.
Lets look again at their footnote 14:
"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."
“Come now Tub, you’re the king of ‘frivolity’ You win the contest hands down.”
Come back and call me frivolous when you can read the quotes you post.
Don't you wish tubby.
“Actually, on this I think edge919 is correct... the legal definition of natural born citizen was settled long before the 14th amendment was ratified: it was the same as in English common law. Any person born under the protection and allegience of the sovereign, which in the case of Britain was the King and in the case of the US was the Republic. That included children of citizens born abroad, as well as children born on US soil of free aliens living under US jurisdiction in friendship with the republic.”
I don’t think edge919 agrees with that.
“There it is in black in white in 959. Indiana admitted that the 14th Amendment only naturalized citizens.”
You used to make me want to argue, now you just make me sad.
“Don’t you wish tubby.”
No, I don’t. I’d much rather not be conversing with someone who’d take me saying “I like to eat hamburgers” as meaning I ONLY like to eat hamburgers, and who’d LOL all night at the thought of what sort of weirdo eats nothing but hamburgers.
“Yeah really - they did” Nope. The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court ruling.
And you know the Governments arugment against Wong Kim Ark?
They said ... “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)”
WOW. THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS KNEW THIS CASE IMPLIED ELIGIBILITY! And further, they definition of eligibility was “citizenship by birth”!
The only reason you won’t acknowledge your error on this your blind refusal to face facts.
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.
We have an example of why birthers are dense, one supposes. You cant parse the sentence right. First, it shows - again - that citizenship by birth and 'natural-born' are te same thing. Second, it merely states the obvious, that the only place in law that 'natural born citizen' confers any extra rights is the Presidential eligibility clause.
Apparently you can't. Lets look at the whole footnote.
"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
[Gee Tub, Indiana admits that Gray did not claim Ark a natural born citizen. He did not because Ark was not a natural born citizen.]
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.
[The operative word above between NBC is "AND" - who was naturalized under the 14th Amend.]
The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478"
That's right Indiana and you trolls here; you guys are jumping to the erroneous conclusions that Ark or Obama are natural born is just silly. I also pointed out that Marie Elizabeth Elg was not running for president but to stay in the United States as a citizen, however the Supreme Court went ahead and ruled her to be a natural born citizen because she had US citizen parents and she was born in the US of A.
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.