OH, you didn't know?! They were GREAT!
(with sincere apologies to Jesse and Billy for the "tag team" reference)
Start here then go here.
Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
Who were those stipid bastages?
A FogBlower.
Furthermore, you're insulting the poster in question's intelligence by speaking for them as if they're incapable of explaining themselves.
Bump....well I suppose now he won’t be able to run for re-election because the MSM will be all over this major news event.
Thank you!!! And no, the name did not sound Chinese. But I read the case AGAIN, and it was his name. There is some other stuff I ran across where he went to China and then tried come back and they didn’t want to let him back in to the county, which is why there are TWO Wong Kim Ark cases, so you have to be careful which one you read. The wrong one is pretty short.
This is getting pretty funny. So Skweeky needs an interpreter.
So, as edge919 would have it, immediately after MvH draws the relevant distinction, between NBCs and "aliens and foreigners", it then suddenly stops and says, "Oh, BTW, there's also this little distinction between NBCs and second-class citizens, but, hey, that's irrelevant here, so we're sorry we brought it up." (Not to mention that "hey, that's irrelevant here" is the very definition of a dictum, and we know what they say about dicta and precedence.)
Of course, I'm just repeating what you said:
all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction"--is what you claim defines an NBC
On edge919's logic, we must have at least two different definitions of "citizen" being bandied about in MvH (leaving aside those instances in which Waite himself specifically qualifies the term, as in "natural born citizen"). I count six instances of the unqualified use of "citizen" or "citizenship". Thrice in reference to parents: "parents who were its citizens", "citizenship of the parents" and "citizen parents". Twice in reference to those parents' children: "became themselves, on their birth, citizens also" and "are themselves citizens". And the last is the disputed case: "include as citizens".
Now (edge919 will correct me if I'm wrong), I don't believe birthers place any restrictions on the citizenship of the parents. They could be themselves NBCs, they could be naturalized, or they could be a member of this "second-class citizenship". Any combination of those will produce NBC offspring. Thus, where addressed to the parents, "citizen" and "citizenship" must be understood in a expansive sense that encompasses all manner of citizenship.
Next are the two applications to the children. In the first, MvH states, "became ... citizens also." Now whatever Justice Waite had in mind for "citizen" here, he specifically rules out the "second-class citizen" definition in his very next sentence: "these were natives, or natural born citizens". So the only way to understand "citizen" here (remember that I'm discounting the possibility that "citizen" and "NBC" are simply synonyms) is in the same expansive sense as it was applied to the parents. This accords well with Waite's "also" which is clearly intended to equate the citizenship of the children with that of the parents. And if he means that in the first application to children, he can't mean anything else in the second.
So all told "citizen" or "citizenship" occurs eight times in this passage. Twice Waite specifically qualifies the term with "natural born". Five times we see that it must be understood in an expansive, inclusive sense. But then we're asked to believe that, in this one instance only, Waite muddies the waters by suddenly switching to a restrictive, COOFCiP ("child of one or fewer citizen parents" -- just made that up :-) ) sense before just as suddenly switching back again. One might think that if Waite meant something different here, he'd have the courtesy to either use different terminology or at the very least qualify his use the way he did with "natural born" previously. From this point forward we're forced to stop at every occurrence of "citizen" and debate which meaning Waite intends, or wonder if he's introducing yet another unsigned definition.
The birther is faced with other problems as well, of course. For example, we're to believe that immediately after explicitly telling us that he's looking to common law to define NBC, Waite procedes to define NBC in direct opposition to the common law definition. Unless,that is, someone here wants to argue that common law ever required two citizen parents. I'd be interested in seeing that argument.
Further, since Minor describes this "second-class citizen" as "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", and since "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" is inclusive of NBCs (even birthers presumably acknowledge that NBCs were born in the jurisdiction), then we are forced to the conclusion that NBCs must be a sub-class of "citizens", not a separate class from it. But if NBCs are a sub-class of "citizen", then how then could there be doubts about the second class, but not the first? "As to the existence of humans there have been some doubts, but never as to the existence of women" defies all logic. What birthers in fact need Waite to have said is, "Some authorities go further and include all children born in the jurisdiction of one or fewer citizen parents". Too bad he didn't. Of course, all these problems go away if we just assume synonymity between "citizen" and "NBC".
you're insulting the poster in question's intelligence by speaking for them
First, Squeeky is a "her" not a "them". Second, she was so insulted she just sent me a big thank you note. Perhaps it's you who should refrain from speaking on others' behalf.
The first thing that strikes me is that you fail to use the whole paragraph. Perhaps that's because it doesn't help your argument since you have the tendency to present the concept of native-born to be the same as natural-born.You tell not the truth. I do not equate native-born and natural-born. I equate citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship. In any case, that native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long before Obama ran for president.
So, for clarity...the whole paragraph instead of your snippet.You tell not the truth. You injected "[native-born citizens]" into Gordon's paragraph to change the question he's asking.The approach of our 45th presidential election evokes once again the question of constitutional eligibility. Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only "natural-born" citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.' The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they [native-born citizens] be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?
Do you consider your actions ethical since the usage of your snippet limits the thoughts Gordon was trying to present?Telling the truth like I do, with properly represented and cited quotes, that's ethical. Your thing, not so much.
And now to the meat... What say you? Answer his question. Can the "native-born" be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?No philman_36, that is not his question. Gordon's question is whether "those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents" can be regarded as natural-born. Those are not the native-born. The eligibility of the native born was already clear.
You're not reading very well. The court didn't agree with Minor's argument on citizenship. They rejected it, not just for her, but they rejected the 14th amendment for women as a class. When it says, "it did not need this amendment to give them that position," the "them" refers to "women," not just Virginia Minor. Read and learn:I love it when the quote of the Court taking my side.There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
You’re hopelessly deranged!
[I had cited:]Even if you misunderstood Gordon, Pryor specifically explains 'native-born' citizens, as, "those born in the United States". It's such a short quote, how could you possibly miss that?"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]The point that is missed is that in the eyes of the Supreme Court, "native-born" or "native" means to be born to citizen parents."It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]
“So I’ve got a question...Are you Bill Bryan from thefogbow.com? You even spell Bryan the same way. “
Nope. It’s my first name.
Heck, it would have been convenient if he'd added the word "two" to the sentence before. It would have been even more convenient if Vattel had. Too bad neither of them did.
Why thank you and well done! Your insults are way more creative than that Red Steel guy’s.
First, Squeeky is a "her" not a "them".
And how do you know this? Do you know "her" personally rather than just online? You've only been here a few days!
I've actually met people from FR in person so I have about two dozen people who have seen me with their own eyes to verify that I'm a man.
Second, she was so insulted she just sent me a big thank you note.
Isn't that special. You're here new defender. A regular knight in chromatic armor you are.
Perhaps it's you who should refrain from speaking on others' behalf.
I wasn't speaking on her behalf. I was speaking about what your actions accomplished.
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.