Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
But Congress, as well as the states, were insistent on a declaration of intent to become a citizen. As long as THAT is in place, I can see Rubio's parent's situation being consistent with congressional intent in the early days of the Republic. (And the FIRST congress was made up of many Convention Delegates.)
That definitely seems to be the intent of the Congress and the States. From there it seems a small distance to argue that was also the intent of the Delegates and the States in approving Article II, but the one bit of information does not necessarily completely prove the other.
In any case, it is a very good argument, and I find it greatly persuasive.
I recommend not holding your breath. Another poster and I spent much of a previous topic going over this with Mr. Edge. He's determined to read "the justices did not understand the court to be committed to the view" as meaning that the court was committed to that view but that the justices didn't grasp that fact. You will not be able to convince him that no normal reader of English would interpret it that way.
You are right, and I’m done with this thread. There is no use in trying to help someone when they do not know basic English.
WKA didn't overturn Slaughterhouse. All Gray did was point out that the subject clause was not exhaustively examined and the court later disagreed about whether consuls were in the same class as foreign ministers and should not be excluded from the subject clause. What you lopped off in the second citatation was not irrelevant at all. It was the ONLY part of the decision that Gray disagreed with, which I pointed out in Post #565. You left that part out because I already debunked your claim. Then you tried to categorize Slaughterhouse as "thoroughly" rejected, which is simply not true. Even NPR notes that Slaughterhouse was never overturned. There's not even any mention of Wong Kim Ark.
Although the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases has never been explicitly overturned, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries an ideologically conservative Court would adopt Field's judicial views, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection not of civil rights but of economic liberties.
link
Please explain how they were supposed to "grasp" something that wasn't decided until TWO YEARS later?? Then go through the breakdown of the paragraph in Post #570. What part of that do you disagree with and why?? Be specific. Pretending you're a "normal reader of English" requires some proof, so hop to it.
See Rogers. See Rogers whine. Whine Rogers whine. See Rogers run. Run Rogers run.
Mario Rubio HAD to have appeared before a magistrate for permanent residency prior to Mario’s birth. If not as soon as he entered, then under the provisions of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966.
Under the provisions of the 1790 law that would have met the requirements for citizenship.
Mario Rubio officially applied for citizenship in 1975, 4 years after Marco’s birth. Marco’s mother applied for citizenship prior to Marco’s birth.
There is also a visit to the US for a period of time in 1956 by Mario Rubio in which he applied for and received permanent resident status. It was probably here that he came to appreciate this country.
He apparently returned to Cuba either for his family or to found his family and was forced to flee in ~1961.
I’m not sure how his prior permanent residency would have been handled after his return to Cuba prior to 1961.
But, I do know that the Cuban Readjustment Act of 1966 required his presence before the law.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mario Rubio would have been considered a citizen in 1790 pioneer America. I suspect that the flood of European immigrants settling the Virginias in the last part of the 1700’s were pausing to swear before a magistrate, and I know that the travel back to any magistrate would have been an enormous, dangerous undertaking. I also know that virtually all of those settlers were fodder for the militia, and they were frequently used.
If Mario Rubio knew the US and fled with his family to the US, then his INTENT is very clear.
You make a good case. I would only add supporting documents from the founding era. Did you happen to look at the congressional debates on the Naturalization act of 1790?
Not yet, but I will.
Mr Madison in the early Congressional debates before the Naturalization Act of 1790 sums it up very clearly on page 1150 of Gales and Seaton’s History as “an oath of fidelity and... intention to reside.” He went on to say that there should be a requirement to reside, and not just an intention.
That is exactly what we’ve been summarizing the requirements as, as well.
If we go to the Founders and say we must have their definition of “natural born citizen”, then we must also go to the Founders to find out circa the same time frame their thoughts on HOW to implement the process to citizenship.
It is a very simple, non-complex residency and oath. And in that pioneer era we must interpret what that would mean for the most remote lives in some very remote states such as Kentucky County, Virginia.
>> “Depends on who you talk to.” <<
.
No, it depends on accepting the massive compendium of evidence contemporary to the founding.
No Question.
>> “I think others do, because what the Court did not do is rule on what the definition of natural born citizen was. Because that was not a matter before the court at the time.” <<
.
No, they didn’t rule on it, but they did comment on it, and that comment shows that there was no question at that time; NB required two parents citizenship.
>> “ Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” <<
.
Absolutely false!
There is nothing that supports the absurd POV.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm confident it's based on yet another tortured misreading of the text. I'll let others deal with it, if they have the patience.
Then go through the breakdown of the paragraph in Post #570. What part of that do you disagree with and why??
That I can do. Let's look at the sentence as an (almost) whole:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of the Slaughter House Cases, understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign states were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment, is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench...Let's simplify it a little:
That [none of the justices] understood the court to be committed to [this] view [...] is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the court delivered two years later.Do you agree that that's a fair simplification of the sentence?
If so, then look at the structure of that first clause, which is the subject of the sentence as a whole: "That none of the justices understood the court to be committed to this view..." "Understand to be" is a common idiom in English, meaning the same as "think is." Examples: "Denly understood to be weighing up contract offer" = "We think Denly is weighing a contract offer." "Yahoo, CafeMom Understood To Be In Acquisition Talks" = "People think Yahoo and CafeMom are in Acquisition Talks."
So "none of the justices understood the court to be committed to this view" = "none of the justices thought the court was commited to this view"--or, "the justices didn't think the court was committed to this view." That's what the structure of "understand x to be y" means to normal readers of English.
You would prefer to read it as though it said, "none of the justices understood that the court was committed to this view." But surely the author would have written that, if that's what they meant. Instead, they chose a common idiom that, in context, makes the sentence mean the opposite of what you claim. That's why I say you're not reading it the way a normal reader of English would--it's like you don't, or won't, understand how that idom works.
Nonsense. You don't even have to read this passage to know that the Slaughterhouse Cases decision was made two years BEFORE the Minor decision, but for those like yourself, who put on your shoes with the big toe pointing outward, the phrase, "delivered but two years later" is self-explanatory. I'll deal with the rest of your post after we see whether you're honest enought to acknowledge this.
Is it just somebody’s POV (point of view) OR is it what a court said??? Because if it is what a court said, then it is THE LAW unless some other court overrules it. Sooo, what this is, is THE LAW and what YOU say is a “Point of View.” Right??? What YOU say is just YOUR opinion, and what YOU say isn’t THE LAW, now isn’t it???
I'm not sure what you want me to acknowledge. That Minor came 2 years after Slaughterhouse? Sure, I'll acknowledge that.
But that's really irrelevant to my analysis of the structure and meaning of that sentence. Are you really going to hide behind this point to avoid addressing that? I'm not going to be diverted.
The time element is critical to the construction of the paragraph. The case that was decided two years earlier did NOT include the same exact issues. What was left out in Slaughterhouse was dealt with two years later in Minor and another similar issue was dealt with in Elk v. Wilkins.
When Miller and others wrote their decision in Slaughterhouse, they didn't know they would be dealing with a case that also involved the 14th amendment two years later. Had they understood that (and of course, there's no way they could have seen into the future), they would have included NBCs as being excluded from the subject clause.
Gray is only pointing this out because he has to cite these other cases. IOW, it's not sufficient to ONLY look at the Slaughterhouse case because, at the time, the court didn't realize it would later be committed to another exclusion to the 14th amendment.
Neither Miller or the other justices in Slaughterhouse understood they were going to be unanimously committed to a citizenship definition that REJECTED the 14th amendment, but history shows they were committed in that unanimous decision.
We warned you a long time ago to stay with the religion threads.
Say hello to Weazie...tell him we send our regards.
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.