Posted on 11/01/2011 11:14:02 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
"Birthers cite an 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett, in which the court used the term "natural-born citizen" to refer to people born in the United States born to U.S.-citizen parents."
"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law Professor Lawrence Solum. But, he added, "The much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural-born citizen."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Yes. Any supporting evidence in print or writing should be placed into the research thread. Were our opponents correct about their interpretation, there would be NOTHING in the research thread. The fact that it is still growing just goes to show how wrong they are.
Have you seen the OWS people? Yeah, his supporters are pretty much crazy, stupid, or evil.
Apologies for spoiling your point, but this quote doesn't substantiate its claim. Yes, Rogers v. Bellei recognized that Congress has to power to naturalize, but the second sentence is undermined by the first. Art II talks about natural-born citizen and citizenship at the time of the Constitution. IOW, it's recognizing TWO principles of citizenship that pre-exist the Congress and its power to naturalize. Further, your case says:
... thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen ...
Do you honestly believe that someone can be retroactively rendered a natural-born citizen??? You said this judge wasn't an anti-birther, but logic like you've shown from the case says otherwise.
My Mother was born to Irish immigrants who naturalized. Her parents kissed the ground of the USA and never looked back. Mom was the most patriotic American I have ever known. She would never call Ireland her home country. Not a word of Gaelic was spoken in the house. As a child, I did not know the language existed. We were Americans, and Grandma just had a funny accent.
The most disgusting thing I have seen is two separate videos of our president and first lady calling Kenya his home country. A link to these two videos should be posted in every website so that the American people understand who it is they are voting for.
This video ranks as one of the foulest recorded moments in US history, and the link should be posted in every comment we post at every web site.
Can you imagine Laura Bush even just rolling her eyes at that moment let alone what has been lip read from Michelle’s lips.
MO and BO are truly the most Un-American people to have ever occupied the office. They look at Americans like they look at dog crap on their shoes. The feeling is mutual.
*
Erin go Braugh! :)
The most disgusting thing I have seen is two separate videos of our president and first lady calling Kenya his home country. A link to these two videos should be posted in every website so that the American people understand who it is they are voting for.
There is another video of Barack Obama addressing a crowd in Kenya in which he says "its good to be home", or some such. (Just looked for it. Couldn't find it. May have been deleted or just buried under all the other crap out there.)
To be raised a Muslim in a foreign country, and then become president of the most glorious Christian country in the world, with all the power to pursue Islamic interests and destroy the USA with bankruptcy. A dream come true for Little Hussein from Jakarta.
“Apologies for spoiling your point, but this quote doesn’t substantiate its claim.”
Ah, no. When you decide to overrule the real court, you’re *demonstrating* my point, not spoiling it. My point, in case you missed it: “Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?”
Your “real” court was a lower court that couldn’t support its reasoning in its decision. I’ve shown directly how it was wrong. The only imagination at work was this judge who claimed that Art II left Congress with the role of defining citizenship. The Constitution reserved the power of naturalization for Congress in Art I Sec 8, and we already know that naturalized citizens are not eligible for president. Tell me your smart enough to understand that much.
I don't blame his so much as I blame the Media. They were the keepers of the gate to the public mind, and they intentionally let in a monster.
edge919 wrote: “Your ‘real’ court was a lower court that couldn’t support its reasoning in its decision.”
So cite the higher court that ruled this lower court’s reasoning insufficiently supported.
edge919 wrote: “I’ve shown directly how it was wrong.”
Ah, so by “lower court” you meant that *you* are the higher authority that overruled the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You played make-believe judge of your own cause, and showed — to your own satisfaction — that you are right.
I could hardly ask for a better example to support my point. I’m not trying to deny your authority over the inside of your own head. My point is about fantasy versus reality. I cited a *real* court, speaking specifically to Article II eligibility. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?
Sorry, but you're deflecting to a logical fallacy. This court's accuracy on this particular point or any other point doesn't soley rest on a subsequent ruling from a higher court. McCain didn't win the election, so it would have been moot to appeal this decision.
Ah, so by “lower court” you meant that *you* are the higher authority that overruled the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You played make-believe judge of your own cause, and showed — to your own satisfaction — that you are right.
The point I brought up should be simple enough for you to examine without relying on a court to form your opinion for you ... especially a court that doesn't substantiate its own claim. An appeal to authority such as this one doesn't have much value unless you can show that all courts are infallible. All you're showing here is that I'm right and that you're too lazy and intellectually dishonest to admit it. Otherwise you should be able to form a rebuttal based on substance rather than character.
So when does a child born in the U.S. need to become “naturalized” as a citizen?
Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.
Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.
If you want me to answer a question, you are going to have to make it understandable first. I have no idea what you are trying to ask me.
Figures.
Well if you realized you had asked a gibberish question, why did you bother asking it? Are you unable to rephrase it in a manner that makes sense, or do you simply lack the capacity to ask an intelligent question?
Not that there’s much point in it. But there are two kinds of citizen in the law. Can you name them?
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.