Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

But yet the courts dont agree with you.
You have to get past Wong Kim Ark (1898) for instance.
The decision does not reference an explicit or implicit “naturalization”.

And that is a VERY old case.

The law as you would like it to be is not the same as the law as it is, which has been subject to centuries of interpretation.

It would take a truly colossal political shift to get a change to your ideal interpretation.

Being Spanish, I appreciate a good Quixotic position, but the ingenious hidalgo only very rarely got his way.


62 posted on 01/19/2024 6:07:55 PM PST by buwaya (Strategic imperatives )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: buwaya
But yet the courts dont agree with you.

I am reminded of what Doc Holiday said to Ed in the movie "Tombstone."

"Ed, what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know, Ed, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it. "

I have a *VERY* low opinions of "courts" in general, and Judges in particular.

You have to get past Wong Kim Ark (1898) for instance.

Not really. They never decide that Wong Kim Ark is a "natural born citizen." They just decide that he's a "citizen."

They weren't dealing with Presidential eligibility here. Besides, how right could the court that gave us Plessey vs Ferguson be?

The law as you would like it to be is not the same as the law as it is, which has been subject to centuries of interpretation.

And therein lies the problem. Too much of it is the opinions of judges, and not the opinions of the framers. Evidence that doesn't conform is tossed out.

It would take a truly colossal political shift to get a change to your ideal interpretation.

Like Roe vs Wade or United States vs Miller?

Fix the lying media, and we could fix a lot of what is wrong with this country.

The existing interpretation of the law does not prevent the very thing the founders were worried about when they created the "natural born citizen" requirement.

The Vattel definition handles the problem easily.

If we are to conclude that we want a definition that accomplishes what the founders intended, we have to go with Vattel, because English law doesn't do it.

72 posted on 01/19/2024 6:22:27 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: buwaya
"You have to get past Wong Kim Ark (1898) for instance.

Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved parents who were US residents; Neither of Kamala Harris parents held US residency at the time of her birth.

80 posted on 01/19/2024 6:36:37 PM PST by KamalaKancel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson