Somebody else posted this the other day. Here is the problem. This stuff has already been petty well decided. There was a 1898 case Wong Kim Ark, which defined NBC en route to its decision. If you want to read Wong in full, here is the link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Now, many people want to bounce all over the place on the Wong language and I have spent probably close to 40 hours, according to some of my birther fans, trying to show people what the case means, and what the language is and what the context is.
If you get lost on Wong, holler and I send you a few things.
Or, if you think after reading Wong, that it don’t apply to Obama and the NBC question, then there is a very easy answer. There was a November 2009 case in Indiana which used Wong to decide that Obama was an NBC. You may not like it, but that’s probably what any court is going to do.
Now within the last few months, another court has decided this way. So it ain’t just me. Here’s the case. Only five or six pages are applicable. Pages 12-18, as I recall. And it is easier to read than Wong, Its got a “Natural Born Citizen” heading where the discussion begins.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Now if you read this, you will note that a couple of Plaintiffs filed “pro se” that is without a lawyer. They did their own legal work, and LO AND BEHOLD, they somehow completely miss the Wong case. A Supreme Court Case which is in every legal analysis of the issue.... they miss. Somehow, these two guys find the Vattel, stuff, which ain’t exactly falling off the book shelves. This is why I doubt the sincere motives of some of these people. Nobody who is honest just kinda misses the biggest case out there on the issue. But, this Court reminds them about Wong!
Vattel isn’t really even LAW. Its Vattel listing out some of the laws of the world and talking about them. It would be the same as citing the “Law for Dummies” book as law itself. The more knowledgeable types should know better. And, behave better. And, most of us don’t want the United Nations or World Courts trumping our rights as Americans. But some people think it is OK to open that door with their “laws of nations” arguments. Go figure...
But, lets look at this recent decision in a little more detail. Remember, this is from the November 2009 Indiana case. It is not binding on any Federal court, but the reasoning is probably what any court will follow. In essence, the Birthers made their arguments. The Court sent them packing, to wit:
The Birther’s Argument (based on Vattel and the usual speeches from whoever they find):
Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)
(Now for the next 5 plus pages, the Court lets them know all about WONG. A string of cases and cites from Wong running all the way back to 1608 England!)
Now the Court is ready to rule:
The Court’s Smackdown of the Birthers :
( Short answer: No, there isn’t any difference!)
The longer answer:
Based upon the language of Art. 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 Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)
That’s pretty straightforward. The Birthers got one thing right-—the thinking of MOST PEOPLE is that there isn’t a difference between “citizen” (non-naturalized) and a “natural born citizen.” AND, this is NOT LIBERAL RADICAL law. For Heaven’s sake, this case incorporates the established law for over 400 years, from 1608 and maybe earlier through to 2009. And 1608.....that’s well before Saul Alinsky and Hippies and Ted Kennedy
parsy, who hopes this helps
Sweetie, it ain’t over until either SCOTUS decides, or Quo Warranto is decided in Washington, D.C.’s District Court. The Indiana case was an example of cowardice and piss-poor legal thinking by a state court. It doesn’t count for much.
There is a huge, massive difference between “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen”. And yes, I’ve read the Wong Kim Ark case. The Supremes decided he was a “native born citizen”. Because of that decision, anyone born in the U.S., even to parents who are illegal aliens, is considered a “native born citizen”. A natural born citizen is born in a nation of citizen parents.
There is nothing unfair about only “natural born citizens” being eligible to be President. No one - NO ONE! - has the ‘right’ to be President.
Whether a person is a naturalized citizen (Schwarznegger), a native-born citizen (Wong Kim Ark), a citizen-by-statute (McCain), or a natural born citizen (Reagan) - all have equal rights as citizens. But only one type of citizen is eligible to be President. That is the way our Founders intended.
Or, if you think after reading Wong, that it don’t apply to Obama
______________
DON’T?? Ok I’ve ignored it for days.... it is DOESN’T not DON’T!! Please, since you are such a *high powered attorney* (LMAO) I should not have to tell you that. I really hate grammar whores but in your case, I will make an exception since you are an Curious George as* kisser and batsh*t crazy.
Doesn’t or Don’t?
Doesn’t, does not, or does is used with the third person singular—words like he, she, and it.
Don’t, do not, or do is used for other subjects.
Incorrect: It don’t matter anymore.
Correct: It doesn’t matter anymore.
Incorrect: Grandfather don’t see too well.
Correct: Grandfather doesn’t see too well.
Correct: His glasses don’t help him much.
Play here, maybe you will then get it.
http://www.grammar.cl/Games/Dont_Doesnt.htm
Translated: Many judges are lazy and easily influenced by incorrect decisions. Natural born has been contorted to mean native-born by such judges who aren't smart enough to read or correctly interpret Wong, preceding case law and English common law.