First off, I would like to thank you for spurring me on to read Gordon. I've been truly negligent in not having read his
opinion beforehand.
And so, having done so let's discuss your often used parenthetical...
"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."
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. So, for clarity...the
whole paragraph instead of your snippet.
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?
To continue the natural/native born aspect...
A third puzzling element of the constitutional declaration is its specification that the presidential aspirant must have "been fourteen years a resident of the United States." If the Framers were speaking only of the native-born, this limitation would hardly have been necessary. It can doubtless be urged that this residence qualification was intended to relate only to the portion of the qualification clause dealing with citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. But while the language of the qualification clause obviously includes this group, it is not in context limited to them. Indeed, it seems consistent with a supposition that the "natural-born" qualification was intended to include those who had acquired United States citizenship at birth abroad.7
And one more...
Next, I turn to Chancellor Kent's famous Commentaries. At one point Kent seemed to equate natural-born with native-born and believed (like Story) 183 that the purpose of the presidential qualification clause was to exclude "ambitious foreigners."184
So here again we see that a distinction is being made though I will agree with footnote 138.
It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. 138
138. All authorities agree that the terms "native" and "natural-born" both refer to citizenship acquired at the time of birth. Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 666, 667 (1927) ; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 665 (N.Y. 1844) ("both expressions assume that birth is a test of citizenship . . ."); Morse, Natural Born Citizen of the United States, 66 ALBANY L.J. 99, 100 (1904).
It appears, at least
to me, that even Gordon makes the distinction that they were not synonymous in definition and referred to two different types of citizens.
So stop your petty games and stop trying to misconstrue the quote to suit your particular, obviously biased, view.
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?
And an interesting aside...
Don't you find that while using Minor v. Happersett as a source Gordon failed to recognize Vattel as a potential source for the term "natural born citizen" when he wrote this...
The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who "were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."142 While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it. 143
Oh, my...it only "appears to equate" the two terms.
Hmmmmm...four hours have gone by.
Are you having problems formulating a reply?
philman_36 wrote:
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. 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?
You tell not the truth. You injected "[native-born citizens]" into Gordon's paragraph to change the question he's asking.
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.