Posted on 02/14/2012 3:17:10 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
Having followed the Obama "natural born" citizenship quandary since its inception, I had always viewed the controversy over Obama's birthplace and other records as a diversion from the real issue: Obama's dual citizenship precluded his constitutional eligibility. My position was also influenced by my desire to elevate discussion on the inextricably related issue of birthright citizenship as a key component in effective immigration reform. Birthright citizenship is the practice of conferring U.S. citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality, domicile, or legal status of its parents. The practice, seen by many as an illegal immigration magnet, also often results in the dilemma of double allegiance, a "supra-citizen" status held by millions of Americans. Although the State Department rarely enforces its policies discouraging dual citizenship, it does recognize its security clearance implications. And the department confirmed that Obama was born a dual citizen.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obamas_eligibility_diversion.html#ixzz1mLwFXoEP
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
As long as this country celebrates anchor babies and border-jumpers and "birth tourists" and devalues legitimate naturalized American citizenship, we are going to have an uphill battle to fight.
“...I’m good at showing what those rulings actually mean.”
Except there isn’t a single state in the Union that agrees, nor any member of Congress - not ONE - and not a court anywhere. You can’t even win an argument even when the other side doesn’t show up.
Yep! You’re REAL good “at showing what those rulings actually mean”.
Sadly, I believe you are correct in this. How can the importance and exclusivity of natural born citizenship vis a vis the founders' concerns regarding potentially divided loyalty and it's relation to presidential eligibility be made clear to the electorate when jus soli citizenship is handed out like geedunk to the children of illegal aliens and "birth tourists", and the act of casting off of prior ties and entering into the solemn pact of citizenship by legitimate foreign-born aspirants is not given the acknowledgment and reverence it surely merits?
No one knows or values natural-born citizenship because no one knows or values basic citizenship.
Every time I see a story about people taking the oath to become American citizens and how proud they are to finally become Americans, I post it here. I am surprised to see papers like the Los Angeles Times, which seems to regularly celebrate illegal aliens gaining entry to our country, to once in a while write laudatory stories about people becoming real Americans by choice.
Rogers, you’re relying on a couple of logical fallacies, when it’s simply easier and correct to say, “edge919 is right again.” The Kenyan coward’s refusal to appear in court doesn’t mean the other side didn’t show up. Malihi wouldn’t have known about “Arkeny” without some creative assistance.
I have a feeling it will be rejected on a phantom procedural error of some kind. WKA and Arkeny are not legal precedents.
“Malihi wouldn’t have known about “Arkeny” without some creative assistance.”
He’s a JUDGE, you damned idiot! How long do you think it took him to find relevant cases? 10 seconds? 15?
You can go on believing you are the Emperor of Rome, but if no one believes you, where does it get you? You can claim you are right about the law, but you have never, ever convinced any court, any state or any Congressman that you are right.
Edge, you are a nutjob. You boast about your legal prowess, but you get your ass handed to you every time you get near a court. Any court.
Even when the other side doesn’t bother to show up.
How pathetic is that?
So...how’s Rome these days, Emperor?
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
“WKA and Arkeny are not legal precedents.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah...they have nothing to do with the case at hand, do they....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awww, isn’t this cute. Rogers is resorting to namecalling because he can’t handle being slapped down over and over by a so-called “birther.” If you want to talk about “idiots,” then we can start with this Georgia judge who can’t even cite the name of the case accurately - “Arkeny” ... what a moroooon. Guess what. “Arkeny” didn’t declare Obama to be born in the U.S. and it didn’t declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. What kind of “idiot” cites such a case as legal precedent and then relies on dicta that the issuing court admitted was never followed by the court from which it was divined??
Rogers is having a meltdown.
“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.”
Ankeny was not asked if Obama was born in the USA. The argument - as was the one the Georgia judge was answering - was that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a citizen of the United States and a „natural born citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The Georgia judge used Ankeny (maybe his eyes were blurred from listening to birthers) to show that another state court, faced with the same question, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement to have two citizen parents.
As usual, your problem is that you aren’t capable of finding your ass with both hands, a map & a flashlight.
But this is the Internet, where you can be a legal expert or Emperor of Rome as you wish...
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in
their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and
quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent
that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of
what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall
under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we
need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.”
BTW - if the judge had looked for another 15 seconds, he could have found the NY Supreme Court case arguing the same thing - 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.’
And, “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. “
But I guess he didn’t feel like taking 15 seconds...
His place of birth was challenged and the IAC admitted it:
Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senatorcurrently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .” Appellants‟ Appendix at 11-12, 16-18.The Georgia judge used Ankeny (maybe his eyes were blurred from listening to birthers) to show that another state court, faced with the same question, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement to have two citizen parents.
The Ankeny court had no actual legal precedent to support this. They said the only legal precedent was based indeed on having two citizen parents.
Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. 12
- - -
12 Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Do you understand what this says?? By claiming Minor left open the question for those born to alien parents, this means the only question that was answered is related to BOTH parents being citizens ... which acknowledges that the only recognized definition of NBC is based on being born in the country to two citizen parents. Everything from here forward is based on spinning dicta in a way that is NOT supported by a pronouncement of another court. The question supposedly left open by Minor was also left open by Wong Kim Ark, because the IAC admits:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
This is odd. The lack of a legal precedent is "immaterial"????? It's not immaterial. The part that is immaterial is the IAC's conclusion that anyone can be a natural-born citizen simply by being born on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court NEVER made this conclusion ... and they admitted it.
It's funny that you cite the passage from this court where they downplay original intent from the authors of the 14th amendment, and Vattel (who is cited frequently by the SCOTUS) is just "an eighteenth century treatise." Then the IAC says these authorities conflict with the SCOTUS's interpretation of NBC. This is simply a lie, one which they helped prove otherwise in their citation of Minor ... the one and only legal precedent for an NBC definition.
The section you cited in Ankeny applied to McCain - they argued he was born outside of the US. For Obama, they argued his father made him ineligible. But then, reading isn’t your strong point.
“By claiming Minor left open the question for those born to alien parents, this means the only question that was answered is related to BOTH parents being citizens ..”
When a court leaves something open, that means they do not try to decide it.
“The lack of a legal precedent is “immaterial”?????”
No, they were saying WKA was not a binding ruling forcing them to say Obama was a NBC. Instead, they said the argument was persuasive. And yes, the DICTA in WKA has been extremely influential in all citizenship cases decided since.
You do realize - or maybe not - that the ruling in Minor was simply “A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to “male citizens of the United States,” is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.”
Everything else in Minor is ALSO dicta.
“IMO, Firstbrook’s narrative is based on undocumented hearsay which just happens to give maximum protection to Barry. Coincidence?”
No, I don’t think it’s coincidence. All these authors are obots. Some of them are connected to “Barry” by various means and others are funded by “Friends of Barry”. Their problem is that all of them can’t keep their stories straight. Just like Obama himself. We can’t know, without documentary proof, what’s true and what’s not. Of course he’s going to spin and have all his obots spin for him. It’s what he does. That’s why proof is necessary to back up all the claims. That’s why he won’t produce proof, because it won’t back up his claims. I wonder if anyone will ever learn the REAL truth about this person.
How can it be considered the definitive definition of NBC when there are two other parent combinations it NEVER addresses? It neither accepted or rejected the notion that only one or no citizen parents could produce a NBC.
So now we have case post Minor where those other parent combinations have been addressed.
Can you show where Vattel is extensively cited by the SC in citizenship cases? I would certainly expect to see a lot of Vattel in international law cases - that was his recognized expertise during his life time after all.
Quite right, and by most measures we are currently losing that battle at an accelerating rate. It is a long war by the left to control the education system, the MSM, the entertainment industry, our government and, as they have recently learned if they have the CinC, our military. That effort is presently more active than ever and it is producing compounded returns.
You may have seen the map two or three years ago that depicted in red Republican controlled counties in the U.S…, the map was overwhelmingly red. The difference in terms of political outcome is the number of RINO’s and “go along, get along” noncombatant Republican leaders at both the state and federal levels.
Is America to die in her sleep?
(In addition to voting and confronting our political leaders, let’s put our heads together and think about how Republicans can reverse the use of the red and blue colors. It is more than rearranging deck chairs. Perhaps Glenn Beck can lead the way on his television program.)
What part of "NEITHER neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America" do you NOT understand???
When a court leaves something open, that means they do not try to decide it.
A) Minor didn't leave anything open. The court reviewed all known parental/place combinations and how each could be used to become citizens. "Arkeny" lied, but even if we were to accept their flawed conclusion, then B) the same logic is true of WKA. It left open the same question, which the "Arkeny" court admitted in their footnote saying that Ark was never declared to be a natural-born citizen. The court has the responsibility to decide what the law says, NOT what they want it to say. The ONLY legal precedent they had was from Minor.
No, they were saying WKA was not a binding ruling forcing them to say Obama was a NBC.
No they weren't. They were trying to say the lack of a legal precedent didn't matter because in their demented logic, it would only be relevant to whomever ends up being president. This is absolute nonsense because it matters to anyone who wants to run for president and for everyone who is ruled under this Constitution.
And yes, the DICTA in WKA has been extremely influential in all citizenship cases decided since.
Except that the ONLY NBC definition WKA recognized is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It clearly said NBCs are NOT defined by the 14th amendment.
Everything else in Minor is ALSO dicta.
Wrong. Virginia Minor argued a right to vote on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen. The SCOTUS unaninimously rejected this argument because they said NBCs are excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The Wong Kim Ark decision confirmed this part of the holding. It is stare decisis, not dicta. What OTHER point was there in considering Minor would be born of citizen parents?? The SCOTUS was willing to recognize that Minor's citizenship would make her eligible to run for president but that it would not give her the right to vote. Wong Kim Ark, by contrast, was not recognized with citizenship that would make him eligible to run for president.
How’s your evil twin, Harlan1169, doing these days? Will we be graced by his freepmail presence again?
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.