“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."
And this "REAL COURT" said this in 2009 — apparently wiping out over 200 years of American jurisprudence in the process?
And you don't/can't tell me about its appeals history, if any?
And you think that quite novel proposition is going to sit well with me — a second generation natural-born American citizen and member in good standing of We the People???
What, are you some kind of one-worlder, open-borders left progressive, or what?
Please advise!
It is a appeals court thing. Whether it sits well with you or not is not my problem. But, it is the law. Plus, it doesn't wipe out anything because it as it says,"Based on etc etc." which is a 100+ year old law case and that law case is based on a few hundred years of stuff, too.
But, I am happy to see you are feeling better.
Referring back to your R176 … The Framers always understood that the very concept of citizenship involves loyalty, fealty, allegiance to the nation to which one belongs. … I believe you have focused in on one of the major reasons for the incremental success of the progressive movement.
This insidious movement bases much of its success on the fact that its leaders are artfully adept at taking the underpinnings of this republic – everything from the Biblical foundations of American law all the way to the Constitution itself – and perverting them so as to sculpt the result to their advantage and render it entirely foreign to the original intent.
That is why case law has become so incredibly dangerous – because when such people succeed in achieving a court decision that flies in the face of both Constitutionally-based law and common sense, that court decision, and subsequent others that rely on it, eventually supersede the Constitution itself.
The focus on perverted minutia, to the eventual exclusion of original intent, is what has succeeded in rendering original intent subservient to glib, left-leaning corrupt interpreters, whose interpretations eventually become written in stone.
And as each succeeding generation of Americans becomes less and less knowledgeable about this republic’s foundations, the interpreters become ever more brazen in authoring ‘law’ and setting ‘policy’ based on no foundation other than the realization of their own power-hungry agenda.
Your assertion regarding the definition of citizenship is a stellar example of this kind of perversion. For the first probably 125 years of our republic’s existence I suspect that no one questioned the fact that an American citizen not only had to meet certain minimal black-and-white requirements but, even more importantly, he would naturally be expected to bear an unwavering allegiance to this republic.
Yet, since the turn of the twentieth century, that portion of the intrinsic definition of American citizenship has found itself overwhelmed to the point of immaterialism because premeditated squabbles over minutia have taken precedence.
Most of what we see passing as ‘law’ these days is itself illegal. And most of what poses as ‘public policy’ these days is nothing more than yet another step in the realization of an insidious left-leaning political agenda.
Thank you, betty, for bringing common sense back into the argument. The fact that that characteristic of political debate is fast approaching extinction is both a primary goal of the progressive movement and, not coincidentally, a powerful force foretelling the demise of our beloved republic.
~ joanie