Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
I'm still waiting to read the evidence that anyone actually did anything here, rather than it being just a database screwup. It seems like everyone went right from "some references were missing" to "scrubbed!" and "sabotage!"
It was Mr. Rodgers who said the things in support of WKA what you replied to, not me! I pinged you because I respect your articulation of the NBC issue, while I, unlike you, also value investigation of the birth location and BC authentication issue.
Well said sir!
Did you get my FRMail?
:)
JUST KIDDING!
It's a good thing really. 1) we find out who the worms are, and 2) it hones our debating and researching skills, and 3) it can be entertaining at times. Particularly when a good long coming zot happens.:)
As you will see below, much of your post is irrelevant and IMO the balance is unpersuasive.
You mockingly state: ...the Founders didn’t care about one’s OWN citizenship at birth for any other governmental office, but were desperately concerned with one’s PARENTS’ citizenship at birth for the President!
Let me help you with the rationale. Only one of those governmental offices you refer to was to serve as the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces. Consider here the founders understood future presidential candidates could well have had immediate family ties to Europe or even England; hence my reference above to the bloody struggle just concluded with England.
You further offer: And rather than actually state that outright, they decided to use a term that every successive generation interpreted as ‘citizenship at birth’…
1. You probably do realize that the ratifiers did indeed “actually state” the NBC requirement in the case of the President’s qualifications; and later amendment extended those to the office of the VP. And, resist as you may, the language of Minor expressly confirms, with no doubt, the meaning of the ratifiers. You probably also note that no other governmental office was expressly limited to a NBC.
2. What is important is the meaning the ratifiers gave to the term and not some vague “successive generation(s)”.
Have a nice evening.
1. natural-born subject with natural born citizen
2. native-born citizen with natural born citizen
If WKA reversed or revised the Minor v Happersett precedent-setting holding on the definition of NBC as requiring two citizen parents on US soil, then WKA would state that and all legal citations after WKA would note that, but they do not.
Your ad hominem attacks do not advance your argument and do not reflect well on you.
Google superior to West or Lexis? In terms of cost, yes. In terms of content or quality? That is laughable.
I am afraid that I don’t see the point.
This is a legal issue for lawyers. Why should I care about the “average blogger?”
Frankly, what it looks like is bad html coding, especially since the case number, 88 U.S. 165, is in the screenshots as a hotlink. I don't suppose anyone has bothered to study all of Justia to see if there are similar mistakes in other cases or not, have they?
....This is a legal issue for lawyers. Why should I care about the “average blogger?”....
Because you are supposed to be a friend of the people.
Since when is eligibility of our President solely the responsibility of the lawyers? We are in deep caca if we leave our fate to the lawyers, they and their elite judges have proven themselves unworthy to let us even have standing to challenge their inaction. They say it is a political question not a legal one so what are we to do? Be uninformed or educate ourselves? A legal decision is not forthcoming, and we are headed to revolt for failure of the legal body to resolve the issue.
Tell me why did the NY BOE change their requirement from Natural Born Citizen to Born a Citizen? Another mistake, this time not involving Justia?
http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/internet-archive-nys-boe-cover-up.html
“the Minor v Happersett precedent-setting holding on the definition of NBC as requiring two citizen parents on US soil”
Except Minor, of course, expressly said they were NOT exploring the scope of NBC. But that is too high a grade English for you, isn’t it?
“Your ad hominem attacks do not advance your argument and do not reflect well on you.”
I have little patience for someone who has had his errors pointed out at great length, but who is too dense to comprehend. There is a reason that every court and every state ignores you, and it is NOT because we’re all a bunch of Obama-lovers.
When Lynch wrote this in 1844:
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
he wasn’t acting as an Obama-bot. He was summarizing the opinions that held sway.
When the court in WKA wrote:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
they were not promoting Obama. They were describing what they found.
Was it “dicta”? Yes, and I’ve said so multiple times. However, it is dicta that has influenced many decisions over the last 100+ years, and the US Supreme Court has refused to revisit what was written in 1898. They had the opportunity, and they turned it down. And installed Obama in office.
Complain all you want, but you will not find a reputable lawyer or a court to back your fantasies up. NBC wasn’t a phrase the Founders pulled from a bad translation of Vattel made 10 years after they wrote the Constitution. It had an established legal meaning, which the US Supreme Court has already said “was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It cannot get much clearer than that. Since you refuse to believe your eyes, I have to conclude you are a conspiracy nut.
Westlaw and Lexis search very narrow databases. Googles database is huge. About 50% of the time Google will find useful information for my legal searches the other two didn't. Most of the information on Lexis or Westlaw is available free, easily assessable. I believe they are both total ripoffs. BTW, I do hours of legal research every day.
Here is one, Frederick Van Dyne Assistant Solicitor US Department of State and author of A Treatise on the law of Naturalization of the United States and Treatise on Citizenship of the United States. I gave you this link before you said you read it but apparently you did not. I will cut through to the meat, which solidifies the precedent in Minor v Happersett, with the punchline, It is crucially important to recognize that Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship could not be established without the 14th Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen. If he had been in that class, the Court would have established his citizenship under Article 2 Section 1 as the court had previously done for Virginia Minor.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/
No doubt a high tension thinker such as yourself couldn't have missed anything. I would suggest it was done for the same reason as this was done.
Liberal twits doing anything they can think of to help their "zero hero" win. Hollywood is full of them, and no doubt Justia is as well.
“I wish they’d put effort into defeating Obama at the ballot box...” - MR
Sure you do. Doesn’t everyone that wants a someone or group to do something they view as positive go around calling them names and trying to point out how misguided they are?
ummmm, never-mind
Kleon writes:
Anyone hatching a plan to destroy the United States with their progeny 50 years down the line could just as easily become a citizen first, therefore making the child a natural born citizen under even the strictest definition.
And that "strictest definition" would be THIS ONE provided by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett:
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“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.
Do you not agree?
Stupidity and Obstinacy, to which there are contributing members here at Free Republic. Here is a more extensive explanation.
Not every generation. Just the stupid ones after 1898. At the time of the Founders, animosity and distrust toward foreigners in positions of trust was somewhat pronounced. Here is George Washington on the subject.
“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.
.
In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, in a publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs: –
“You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction between them and foreigners.”
.
“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.” - 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day. 9
.
“Dear Sir: I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects I am to do with the many foreigners that have at different times been promoted to the rank of field-officers, and by their last resolve two of that of colonels? These men have no attachment for the country further than interest binds them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have toiled in the service and have sustained many losses, to have strangers put over them, whose merit perhaps is not equal to their own, but who effrontery will take no denial. It is by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must be supported, and not by the few hungry adventurers. I am, &c., GEO. WASHINGTON.”
.
“Dear Sir: The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of very great importance to the well-being of these states, much more so than will appear at first sight – I mean the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank and trust in our service.
The lavish manner in which rank has hitherto be bestowed on these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the other of these two evils, either to make us despicable in the eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon us like a torrent, and adding to our present burden. But it is neither the expense nor the trouble of them I most dread; there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal in its consequence to be apprehended, and that is, the driving of all our officers out of the service, and throwing not only our own army, but our military councils, entirely into the hands of foreigners. …
The expediency and policy of the measure remains to be considered, and whether it is consistent with justice or prudence to promote these military fortune-hunters at the hazard of our army. Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be productive of much discontent. In a word, although I think the Baron an excellent officer, I do most devoutly wish – that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon very different principles from those which govern the rest.
Adieu. I am, most sincerely yours, GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
.
‘Cease, sons of America, lamenting our separation. Go on and confirm, by your wisdom, the fruits of our joint councils, joint efforts, and common dangers; reverence religion; diffuse knowledge throughout your lands; patronize the arts and sciences; let liberty and order be inseparable companions. Control party spirit, the bane of free government; observe good faith to, and cultivate peace with, all nations; shut up every avenue to foreign influence; contract rather than extend national connections; rely on yourselves only; be Americans in thought, word and deed. Thus will you give immortality to that union which was the constant object of my terrestrial labors; thus will you preserve undisturbed, to the latest posterity, the felicity of a people to me most dear; and thus will you supply (if my happiness is now ought to you) the only vacancy in the round of pure bliss high Heaven bestows’.
Methinks I see his august image, and hear falling from his venerable lips these deep-sinking words“; –
Recollections of George Washington by Henry Lee in Washington’s funeral oration before the House of Congress on December 26, 1799.
http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/
I don't either, except by accident once in awhile. I wish we had a "Mr. Rogers" filter.
Beyond that, if I am reading this 1952 law correctly, he was here on an illegally issued Visa. The law specifically states that Visa's are not to be issued to anyone that believes in or Practices Polygamy, or anyone that believes in or associates with Communists. I have an Obama troll to thank for showing this piece of legislation to me. It wasn't what they were trying to do, but I actually read it and surprised Him/Her/it. :)
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
The Act allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country. It was used to bar members and former members and "fellow travelers" of the Communist Party from entry into the United States, even those who had not been associated with the party for decades.
"The law states that an alien is not of good moral character if he is a drunkard, has committed adultery, has more than one wife, makes his living by gambling, has lied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has been in jail more than 180 days for any reason during his five years in the United States, or is a convicted murderer.
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.