Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH
YES, I AM! I can READ.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens......”
You’ve mis-quoted the decision. The correct text reads “...The Constitution does not...say who shall be a CITIZEN...”
It then goes on to state that it was never doubted that those born in the US to citizen parents are CITIZENS....
They then say that these people (born in country to citizen parents) are the Natives or Natural Born Citizens. Pretty clear cut!
The Court continues by adding that while there is disagreement over what other circumstances of birth result in CITIZENSHIP, but there had never been a doubt that those born in the country to citizen parents, (Natural Born Citizens) are citizens.
It should be noted that the issue the court was addressing was whether or not Eliz. Minor was a CITIZEN. That she was born in the country to citizen parents (ie a NBC) left no doubt that she was a CITIZEN, and eliminated any reason for the court to continue to examine this aspect of the case.
The issue of being a NBC is only relevant if one is running for the office of President of the US. That statis/circumstance of birth carries no other relevance/cashet in US law except in that instance.
The 14th Amendment partially answered the question of who shall be a CITIZEN by including as CITIZENS those born in the country to legally residing non-citizens. It was passed in order to insure that the children of former slaves would not have to go through the process of Naturalization. The later decision in Wong Kim Arc applied the 14th Amendment to a non former slave person, and declared the US-born Chinese legal Resident-Alien WKA a CITIZEN......
Neither the 14th Amendment nor the SCOTUS decision in WKA has any bearing on the concept or definition of Natural Born Citizenship...
The issue of who shall be a CITIZEN is a continuing question and the understanding of what makes a “CITIZEN” is constantly elvolving and changing. The term NBC, however, has a set definition and settled meaning in the law except to those chasing/promoting some sort of an agenda.
Those that use the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen interchangably are attempting to confuse what is, and has been until Obama, and to a lesser extent Jindal and Rubio, a clear cut issue. They do the American public a great disservice in promoting their narrow agenda of trying to place a specific personality over the US Constitution/law.
“Shame on Ya!”
“It has been resolved by the 14th amendment - for good or bad.”
The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about the definition of a “natural born citizen.”
Anyone who thinks “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are equivalent needs to see this:
Should Anwar al-Awlaki have been eligible to run for President?
http://www.art2superpac.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00011
You just played a typical lawyer’s trick. Why did you not quote the whole relevant wording, starting with ‘To naturalize’ and take it all the way to where the issue of Indians is entered, “’... no exception to this statement [of jus soli + jus sanguina] touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.’ If you quote the passage fully, and in the proper order, it appear much more clearly that Bingham is assuming jus soli and jus sanguina when referring to ‘those born within the Republic’, because he continues and makes the clarifying definition after that sentence. But that was a nice try ...
Correct, I say.
“There is no reference to a candidate’s parents in the constitution.”
I beg to differ. The term Natural Born Citizen, as a matter of language, means someone born of a nation whose parents where it’s citizens. The definition of NBC was well known and understood by those writting the Constitution.
Call me a liar if it makes you feel better. Then go back and read the earlier posts here, from the constitutional rulings, that say “parents who owe no allegiance to a foreign power.” It doesn’t discuss how friendly we are with that power.
There are reasons for these protections, and those reasons are more important than if your son can be president. Try to be objective, and not like an emotional, reactive Democrat.
By the way, I am also married to someone from a foreign country.
Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen. Period. There has been no USSC case that determined anyone born in the US to be natural born.
Either you're just making stuff up, or you want to trot out that strange, self-negating Ankheny case from a state court in Indiana, I take it? This warrants your use of the words "every case" as if there have been many all across the country, rather than one highly politicized, controversial case in a single state court?
You wouldn't be attempting to create the false impression of "settled law," here, would you, Mr. Rogers?
Regardless of how we shed ourselves of this America hating commie thief, gone will be good.
More’s the pity they didn’t spell it out for those who followed.
And, the English language is my specialty...
Take heart in that your grandson probably will be without a single doubt!
LLS
Maybe not, but the reference was clearly toward generally accepted Brittish Common Law.
Regardless of the politics, Corsi does us no favors.
It will take years but the truth will come out. Just as someday Martin Luther King’s FBI file will be made public.
“The question comes down to whether there are two classes of citizen...”
There are no “classes” of citizenship in the US. All citizens share in the same rights and responsibilities.
There are however different qualities of citizenship.
The US Constitution, in setting out the eligibility requirements for holding National elective office, has required that the office seeker posses certain qualities of citizenship, the main one being the NBC requirement for POTUS.
I’m in love with Norma Loquendi.
“More’s the pity they didn’t spell it out for those who followed.”
The Founders include many well read and educated men, however they did not forsee the need to gild the lily for those 200 years later. Fortunately the US Supreme Court has stepped up to the plate and determined the issue less than 100 years from the founding, and provided an understanding of NBC in numerious “citizenship cases, “ Minor v Happersett” being only one of many.
The High Court did no such thing.
For those that are married to foreign citizen husbands, you should be aware that prior to women being given the vote in 1922, a women’s nationality followed that of her husband’s. A woman did not hold citizenship separate from that of her father/husband.
In the 1700-1800’s marrying a non citizen would have changed your citizenship. When/if he became a naturalized US citizen you would regain your US citizenship.
In our more enlightened and modern times, women do indeed hold citizenship separate from that of the men in their lives.
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.