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 ...
The breathtaking parts of my posts have evidently cut off the flow of oxygen to your brain. You don't seem to know what it means to be stupid, but you certainly have the ability to demonstrate it.
Re-read it. Please keep an open mind.
You ask why would they bring it up? It seems Minor claimed that the 14th amendment should protect her right to vote. They disagreed, unanimously.
Read the decision in its entirety. I was shocked when I read it, as it become so obvious to me. If you study it for a half hour and be open to it. Trust me. I think you will see it.
This is the kind of statement that prompts my "normal reader of English" comment. "Further" is a comparative adjective--it implies that there is a distance already covered. The only distance already covered is a definition of "natives, or natural-born citizens." There is no other discussion of what constitutes citizenship by birth for the "born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" description to go "further" than.
Then, right after the "it is not necessary to solve these doubts" sentence, they say "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." Not "...are themselves natural born citizens," which you would have expected them to write if the "further" sentence was about plain-old citizens.
Furthermore, consider the word "sufficient." It matches up nicely with "further" to mean "some people go further than this, but we only have to go this far for our purposes." It's similar to the way they paired "it was never doubted" (which is clearly about NBCs) with "as to this class there have been doubts" (which one would therefore expect to also be about NBCs).
You can only make the passage mean what you want by breaking it down into individual clauses and finding a meaning for each clause that works for your purpose. Normal readers of English would consider the passage as a whole, with all its internal referents.
Too bad, though, because normal readers of English don't generally sit around and read Supreme Court decisions, nor are they written for average readers.
"Further" is a comparative adjective--it implies that there is a distance already covered.
And I've already explained that the part in question went further in defining those who are "included as citizens."
Then, right after the "it is not necessary to solve these doubts" sentence, they say "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
I'm going to stop you here, because the rest of your lament doesn't change the overriding point. Minor claimed to be a 14th amendment citizen and the court did NOT accept this argument. Any doubts, even if the "further" sentence was about natural born citizenship, would have been easy to solve by virtue of a shiny, brand-new amendment. You claim I didn't consider the WHOLE passage, which is absolutely false, because the definition of NBC is key to the reason Minor's argument was rejected.
Why would the court accept a definition for which there is doubt?? Why would we assume that definition is "left open" when the alternate definition was proposed by the appellee for herself, but rejected by the court?? Any doubts that could be solved would have to be done using a different term than natural born citizen because THIS court gave us a definition for which there is no doubt, and the court affirmed that definition and decision UNANIMOUSLY.
“You have to remember, when looking at the word “Further” that the context or major point of discussion is citizenship. Not NBC.”
No.
Further builds on the statement that precedes it. If they wanted to switch to a separate discussion - to say “NBC is X, but plain citizens are Y”, they would use “and” or “also”.
Thus:
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” would, if your interpretation is right, read:
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities also include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Or:
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. And some authorities include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
You have to remember, when looking at the word “Further” that the context or major point of discussion is citizenship. Not NBC.
But not in that paragraph. It's part of a larger discussion of who's a citizen, yes. But this paragraph isn't discussing naturalized citizens, it's discussing born citizens. Only if you've already decided that "born citizen" and "natural born citizen" don't mean the same thing (and IMO there's no basis for that decision) can you conclude that this sentence is about citizenship in general.
By the way, I notice that in the introduction to the case, they refer to "Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States." If the argument is that they decided Minor was an NBC, doesn't that mean native-born is the same as natural-born? They certainly don't spend any time drawing that distinction.
You ask why would they bring it up? It seems Minor claimed that the 14th amendment should protect her right to vote.
Yes, but not because it made her a citizen. Nobody ever questioned that she was a citizen--it's not a citizenship case, despite what others will tell you, it's a voting rights case.
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.To put in more modern, simpler language: "The argument is that because a woman is a citizen of the U.S., she has the right of suffrage as part of her citizenship, and the state can't abridge that." She's not arguing that the 14th made her a citizen; rather, that it guaranteed rights to all citizens that she, as a citizen already, should share in. The reason the court is discussing citizenship is to show that native-born women always were natural-born citizens but couldn't vote, so voting is not a right guaranteed to citizens. That's why they disagreed, not because of some distinction between types of citizens.
Yes, there is a distinction between “Born Citizen and “Natural-Born Citizen”. This is why the founders decided to change the draft of the constitution from “born citizen” to Natural-born Citizen. Changing the language of the constitution during its drafting was a contentious business.
The “Furtehrmore” problem .... Which statement supports my argument or your argument, and which is in this decision by the supreme court that is directly referring to the Constitution:
1. “Some authorities go further and include as citizens ...”
2. “Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens ...”
The term “Natural” had very special meaning during the founding and with the founders. Positive law versus natural law. There is a distinction. Foreigners come here every day to give birth, with no intention of respecting our responsibilities as citizens, and teach their children to do the same. This is not natural citizenship. It is contrived by man, a positive law.
If we can prove that Virginia Minor had two citizen parents, then we have more proof that “Natural” is born of citizens. If she has a foreign citizen for a parent, your argument is proved by this court.
This is a copy of the paragraph, with the CITIZINS linking each sentence in caps, SIX times in the same paragraph from the chief justice in a unanimous decision. CITIZENS. Note again that this is used SIX times to link the sentences and is the common subject of each sentence:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born CITIZENS. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, CITIZENS also. These were natives, or natural-born CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves CITIZENS. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Here is the same text with NATURAL-BORN in caps. At no time is it ever used in in the same sentence to describe citizens born of foreign citizens. It is only used twice, and only once exclusive to sentences with Citizens born of citizens:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be NATURAL-BORN citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or NATURAL-BORN citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Now, we must also remember that this paragraph, a dissertation on “CITIZENS”, was required to establish the Virginia Minor was in any class of “CITIZENS”, regardless of the 14th that gave citizenship as Positive Law.
Let me give an example of Natural Law, as I see it.
A Horse and a Zebra can mate, and have offspring. A child only knows nature. Positive law has not taken root in his mind. A child may then look at the animal, and declare it is a Zebra. Another child may look at it and call it a Horse. In a way, Yes, they both are correct. It is a Horse. It is a Zebra.
But, as adults, nature tells us no, it is neither. It is not a natural. It has enough biological difference that nature will not be fooled. It can not reproduce.
Now, Take Barack Obam. He is born on American Soil, and is declared an American citizen by the 14th amendment. Yes, his Father, rightfully so, can declare him as a Kenyan citizen, just as the two children claim their new animal is either a horse or a zebra. Nature, when applied to citizenship comes from one nationality and one country. Not Two. His citizenship is not Natural-Born. His citizenship is dictated by Positive law. This is why divorce cases between citizens of separate countries become so convoluted and difficult. The citizenship of the child can be declared both, just as the title of the offspring of the Horse and Zebra. Obams father could have taken Obama to Kenya, against his mothers will, and rightfully declared he was a Kenyan citizen. Obama has acknowledged this, by admitting he himself had every right to Kenyan citizenship, and has called Kenya his Home Country.
The application of Natural has specific meaning. As an example, I ask one more question. What is a Natural-Pair when playing cards? There are no wildcards foreign to the numerical class of the pair? Correct? A horse and a Zebra do not give a natural-animal. They produce an animal. A wild Jack and an Ace to not produce a natural-pairing. They produce a pair. A kenyan and an American citizen do not produce a Natural- born citizen. They produce a citizen.
I have not seen the place where either this court or David Ramsay explicitly draw a distinction between Native and Natural born. In fact, this court says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Are you claiming that they think "natives" and "native born" mean two different things--"natives" = "natural-born," but "native-born" = something else?
Which statement supports my argument or your argument, and which is in this decision by the supreme court that is directly referring to the Constitution:
My argument is that, since they just said there are only two ways to add citizens--birth and naturalization--"citizen" (in a sentence about born citizens) and "natural born citizens" mean the same thing.
They had to fit her into a class of citizen before ruling on her case, and pay deference to the constitution. They are stating that she is, in fact, a natural.
I don't see the place where they say "she's a native born citizen, like we already said, but now we're going to determine that she's a natural born citizen too."
Please see if you agree with what I see in the paragraph we are discussing, and see if my argument makes sense.
I understand your argument. But to me, what makes most sense is that the court is using "native born," "natural born," and "new citizens...born" interchangeably. I encourage you (as you encouraged me before) to read the case again with that interpretation in mind, and see if it's not more straightforward and comprehensible.
I'm about to get on a plane and won't be back for a couple of weeks. I'm sure that in my absence "these doubts will be resolved" by the FReeper community.
Do you concur Vattel is a writer and commentator on the law of nations or Law of Nations?
I would go farther. Vattel was probably #1 among the writers who dealt with the Law of Nations.
If, for example, he conflicted with Pufendorf (http://www.amazon.com/Law-Nature-Nations-Eight-Books/dp/1584773944/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1316909209&sr=8-4) - and I don’t know that he did, but if he did - then I suspect most of the Founders would have taken Vattel’s side as more authoritative.
1. NBC-DEFINED : “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
2. CHILDREN BORN TO ALIENS : “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
3. VIRGINIA DECLARED A CITIZEN BY DEFAULT, NBC : “The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”
So, Regarding the constitution they first declare that CITIZENSHIP, NBC CITIZINSHIP, Children born of Citizens, was never in doubt. It existed since the founding, by common law, as understood by the founders. However, The class of CITIZENSHIP of Children born of foreign citizens did have doubts. They did not need to resolve these doubts regarding CITIZENHIP of children born of aliens on US soil, thus covered by the 14th amendment.
Then they go on to say, she had citizenship prior to the 14th, the amendment to the constitution that granted citizenship to children born of aliens on US soil.
Therefore, you must deduce by their decision, by default, that Virginia Minor was born to two US citizen. There were only two options, and they ruled the second option out for this case. The only option left is that Virginia was born to two US citizens. A Natural-born.
To me, this is so clear cut and very simple. I am betting that if notes from this case survived, we will find that they verified her parents citizenship prior to making the decision.
I will cede, that if a single paragraph is taken from the decision without regard to the language of the decision in its entirety, and the word CITZENS is inerpreted and transformd as NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS because of the word Further and the word class is ignored as a distinction of classes between citizenship and NBC citizenship, it could be construed as you say. When read as a whole, it takes much more work to construe it that way, and much more creative supposition. I will not concede that when the decision is consumed in its entirety that the three are interchangeable.
I will also cede that your interpretation fits the most popular opinion. I will not cede that it is the most logical, because if allowed to stand as law, the NBC clause in the constitution is null and void. If left to stand, then changing the draft of the constitution from “born citizen” to “Natural-Born citizen” was a meaningless waste of our founders time. Our common interpretation, in your favor, allows for anyone with any citizenship in the world, born on our soil, to become the president. It legalizes “anchor baby” Presidents.
We currently have Americans at war, fighting under the direction of a man who has had three foreign citizenships. This is a gamble that the founders ruled out with the NBC clause. We, as voters as a whole, have effectivly voided the clause, but the clause still exists, clear as day in this decision, the constitution, as well as Ramsays and Vattels writings.
See my post 211 on this. I believe that the Court was wrong about this in Minor, making the whole debate about their language irrelevant.
The Constitution does say who are its natural-born citizens:
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
-PJ
National Park Service Virgina Minor Stuff
Sooo, you can see this whole case had nothing to do with the two citizen parent stuff. Plus, there is a tape you can play of Virginia Minor talking, but I am not sure if it is her or not, or a actress, because she died in 1894 and maybe they only had those scratchy sounding things then.
Now we just need to erase the decision and rewrite it to agree with you. Welcome to 1984! Who do we contact to rewrite it?
The fact that you found citizenship has nothing to do with voting rights in this monumental Supreme court decision is astounding.
My hat is off to you, as well as Justices Kagan, Sotomier and Ginsberg, who would certainly agree with you on this constitutional point.
Job well done!
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.