Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“The context of Minor helps us understand Gray’s dilemma in Wong Kim Ark. Justice Waite REJECTED the 14th amendment in being necessary to define the citizenship of someone who met the Vattel definition of natural born citizen.”
Here’s yet another example of birthers pretending totally uncontroversial statements somehow argue in their favor. Of course the 14th amendment isn’t necessary to establish NBC status. We all know citizenship passes through parentage as well as soil. You confuse the 14th amendment not being necessary in their cases with it being irrelevant in all cases. Which is not the case.
So Tubby, is it your turn to post nonsense? You guys come and go on these eligibility threads as if someone runs a monthly/yearly troll schedule. We see WOSG, who trolled these threads back in 2008 and some in 2009 back again trolling for Obama and the Democrats. So who runs your trolling schedule for FR? You can tell us... we won't tell....
And you're too dense to see the truth of the conclusions in Supreme Court holdings and what is plainly written in the US Constitution and what is not.
You guys are lucky that FR is not zotting you guys on these threads with regularity as what was happening back in 2008.
“You repeat in so many words that jus soli births in the United States is the sole criteria to be a natural born citizen.”
First of all, no, I don’t. There is parentage, which by itself transmits citizenship at birth and therefore NBC status. There’s also the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which excludes various people born on the soil.
Secondly, if I were arguing that, at least it would be controversial. Your “argument” is simply a waste of time. No one—do you hear? no one!—denies that the Ark decision did not hold he was an NBC.
You’re either badly representing your understanding, or you’re very, very badly understanding my position. Or you’re just not reading my posts, or just don’t care.
There are no so-called 'birthers' pretending any such thing. Waite's rejection of the 14th amendment in establishing citizenship is what led him to using Vattel's definition of natural born citizen, which is dependent on citizen parents. Faithers and sandheads argue otherwise by ignoring that Justice Gray quoted and affirmed this decision, definition and principle in the WKA ruling.
Of course the 14th amendment isn’t necessary to establish NBC status. We all know citizenship passes through parentage as well as soil.
You need to inform your faither brethern of this. They argue that parentage is not relevant to natural born status. Thanks for setting the record straight that it is.
And you clowns take dicta or obiter dicta from Supreme Court opinions as the virtual truth while at the same time you ignore the conclusions or misconstrue their words.
“Justice Waite REJECTED the 14th amendment in being necessary to define the citizenship of someone who met the Vattel definition of natural born citizen.”
ALL the Justices on both sides agreed to the basic point that English common law definition of citizenship was what drove the definition of citizenship prior to the 14th. vattel is besides the point.
” The point, is that if the so-called common law view of citizenship was to be accepted, there was no need for a citizenship clause in the 14th amendment.”
No, that was not the issue. The 14th amendment was made necessary by Dred Scott, where citizenship was denied to blacks. The quotes birthers use from Minor were asking the question of whether women were citizens. Well guess what, they were citizens from the time when US was created. So women didn’t need the 14th amendment to be considered citizens. What was it based on then? Common law definitions of birthright citizenship. Nevertheless, the 14th A birthright citizenship clause undoubtably helped secure and remove doubts if there were any.
‘Waite makes a point of saying Virginia Minor’s citizenship did not depend on the 14th amendment and that she already had citizenship because she was born in the country to citizen parents.”
THERE IS THE LOGICAL FALLACY RIGHT THERE. Someone is a natural born citizen for reason X. The logical fallacy that birthers have is to conclude that ONLY THOSE WHO SATISFY REASON X can be natural-born citizens.
We all know that apples are fine fruit.
Does that make apples the ONLY fine fruit in the world?
We all know that children born in the US of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. Does that statement make it impossible that there are other instances where one can be a natural-born citizen? NO!
Nothing in Minor contradicts Wong Kim Ark. The other case, being born to alien parents, “there are doubts” said Minor, not to conclude one way OR THE OTHER. NOTHING IN THAT QUOTE CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER - THERE WERE DOUBTS ... THE DOUBTS WERE REMOVED IN THE WONG KIM ARK CASE!
“For Gray to dispute this means he’d have to overturn the Minor ruling”
NO! There was nothing for Gray to dispute. Both agreed that common law drove birthright citizenship prior to the 14th amendment. Gray quoted Minor for that reason.
This is one clear area where birthers are simply not on the same legal planet as the US judicial system since 1789.
” For Gray to dispute this means he’d have to overturn the Minor ruling”
WHAT?!? That makes NO sense, that Gray would have to overturn ‘women are citizens” if he claimed that a child of aliens was natural-born!?!?
You are forgetting that the 2 cases were on two different controversies, and Gray willingly used Minor - again - mainly to establish the importance of common law in the definition.
” but instead, he affirms it and creates a new definition for generic citizenship at birth.”
Way, way, way, out to lunch. No such thing was created.
ALL OVER A SIMPLE MIS-READING OF A STATEMENT AND TREATING ONE CASE AS AN EXCLUSIVE CASE.
Birthers are pushing the proposition that because a Frenchman said once that Grapes are considered a fine fruit in France that ONLY grapes are fine fruit.
“Gray was subtle in writing up the decision. He didn’t acknowledge the lower court ruling which claimed Ark was an NBC. Generally at the end of a SCOTUS case, it will says the lower court ruling is affirmed”
It was affirmed. The writing was subtle for reasons I mentioned prior. Gray answered the question he needed to answer and not more. He may have been restrained for political reasons, if there was in this case a tinge of ‘how can we let a chinaman become President?’ Given the birther attitude exhibited in this thread, such a supposition of careful language to make the clear decision uncontroversial is not unreasonable.
See your pal WOSG dingbat. You have not been paying attention. He argues all the time that Gray concluded that Ark was an NBC at birth.
“You guys come and go on these eligibility threads as if someone runs a monthly/yearly troll schedule.”
It so happens that birthers frequent birther threads because...well, that’s by definition what they’re into. The rest of us pop up to comment on the first page of a thread about Bobby Jindal, and accidentally end up posting for days on the minutiae of the Constitution, case law, international law, the American Revolution, English history, Roman history, Greek history, philosophy, semantics, and everything else.
Disagreement with the majority, by the way, does not a troll make. I realize you’d prefer for their to be no “trolls” so that, rather than substantive debate on fundamental issues, you could argue over just how much danger faces the republic from the recent unconstitutional usurpation. (Is it imminent, or merely inevitable?)
Lucky!?! You think our missionary work in trying to shed a bit of common sense on this matter is easy!?!
And standing up for truth on this matter all we get is catcalls from crazies like you...
When you have to resort to ad hominems and calling us trolls you’ve pretty much lost the argument and the point.
Then you must agree that Obama is not an NBC. Right?
There’s also the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which excludes various people born on the soil.
Oh really? Then you must also agree Obama is not a natural born citizen because of double allegiances and who had a British/Kenyan citizenship at birth, therefore, he was not a natural born citizen.
No.
Gray concluded in WKA ruling that Ark was a citizen at birth.
A necessary conclusion of this is that Ark was also a natural-born citizen, based on the definition of the natural-born citizen. Gray was not explicit in that and did not state that, we all agree. THAT is what I’ve been saying.
The descriptions of you are accurate.
When you have to resort to ad hominems and calling us trolls you’ve pretty much lost the argument and the point.
What I point out is the denseness of trolls like you who go on for days posting your nonsense. Go cry somewhere else baby.
“So if it was such a comprehensive and absolute influence”
You are engaged in a well-known logical fallacy: the argument to moderation. I never said it was absolute. That’d be as silly as what Red Steel and patlin were saying. You want for the sacred middle ground to be, I guess, whatever level of influence is historically justifiable yet exclusive of granting citizenship to the children of aliens. How convenient would that be?
Comprehensive is probably a good word for it.
“why did we change choose to be citizens and not subjects and have a president instead of a monarch??”
Why did Englishmen assassinate Charles I and appoint Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector? If you asked them, they’d probably offer some mumbo-jumbo about asserting their sacred rights as Englishmen, as partly found in the common law, against a tyrant. But, clearly, these men were never governed by English law. Most likely they took their cue from international law scholars, Jesus, Plato, Aristotle, and Moses.
“I’ve never seen anyone say Vattel’s works were more important than England”
Look closer. I’m not flapping my jaw for nothing. You think I like repeating painfully obvious, nigh-universally known historical facts? They started it.
“Obama myth skeptics simply cite the direct, indirect, but ultimately obvious influences it had on the framers of the Constitution.”
They do much more. Were you not around when they said Vattel has force of law because he appears in the Constitution, while common law is not law at all because we don’t have feudalism anymore?
“It’s more of a fetish to work inordinately hard on discrediting the impact of Vattel’s work.”
Once again, they started it. Look it up. I wouldn’t bother if no one made outrageous claims.
Then what are you here for troll? -- No, you are here to misconstrue that there's some hidden meaning that Gray really meant he was also a natural born citizen. Go find a crystal ball and have a seance to hear Gray in the afterlife. You'd be disappointed.
“And you’re too dense to see the truth of the conclusions in Supreme Court holdings and what is plainly written in the US Constitution and what is not.”
What decisions? Ark, where NBC was not at issue and not decided upon? Or Elg, where it was not what’s plainly in the Constitution, but the extra-Constitutional fact that everyone and their mother knows there’s no doubt when you have citizen parents?
Yeah lucky. Here are some of the After-birther brethren that have been Zotted into non-existence.
MichaelMichael;Koyaan;EnderWiggins;steve-b;MrRobertPlant2009;Dr Conspiracy;Big_Monkey; world weary; MilSpecRob;smrstrauss;awake-n-angry;VADOC1980.
“not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens”
What are they, then? Wait don’t tell me, because there is no other option. The third way is a phantom.
“You guys are lucky that FR is not zotting you guys on these threads with regularity as what was happening back in 2008.”
If FR started zotting people like me and WOSG while leaving you alone, I’d quit coming to FR.
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.