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.
WKA recognized the findings in Minor v. Happersett in that a person born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen whose citizenship does not depend on the 14th amendment. If your citizenship IS dependent on the 14th amendment, you aren’t a natural born citizen. It’s why Justice Waite declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of the 14th amendment, but clearly avoided declaring him to be a natural born citizen.
Huh? Are you not claiming that Wong Ark is a natural born citizen? And my response was to WOSG...
WOSG - "Show me where SCOTUS says Kawakita is *not* natural-born. If you got that, you have something. If they are silent on it, you got nothing."
Where I responded with the same silliness as he did with,
"Show me where in the SCOTUS opinion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that said Ark was a natural born CITIZEN? Nope, not there there... "
You guys are weak when it comes to logical inference.
yo tambien...i could care less about this guy but I do like him tweaking Obama
“Under English common law, they had NO right to do that so where did they acquire that right?”
From the same place the English Whigs claimed to get their right to topple the crown in 1688. From English history. From the special rights and privileges of being a free Englishman.
By the way, arguing over whether revolution is justified by law is the worst sort of sophism. Concepts as vague as removed from quotidian society, such as popular sovereignty, the “right to revolution,” the social contract are rarely codified in law. They are kept floating in the air for good reason. How do you practice popular sovereignty, anyway, once someone disagrees, which is immediately? You don’t. The 9th amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a notable exception, but see how often that’s invoked, and how much good it’s done.
Of course the common law didn’t say anywhere “If you ever get tired of all this, it may please you to go ahead and throw it overboard. We won’t mind.” Men had to find inspiration for drastic action elswhere. Philosophy, for instance. But if you believe philosophy springs from the ground fully formed, I have a bridge to sell you. Especially in its political form, it can hardly be untethered to prosaic origins. No philosphy is totally unaffected by the legal tradition of the country in which it was developed. None is su generis.
If it seems I make a true though trivial point, I submit British and American whigism, which in a world of prosaic tetherings is notable for its groundedness. Anyone who can’t perceive their origin in the common law tradition has their head in the sand. We can overstate these things. The Whigs themselves were too fond of projecting themselves back into the past. It’s hardly likely that the Magna Carta has a direct connection to 1688 or 1776. But—and here’s the important thing—William and Mary-ites and patriots thought it did, and said so endlessly.
If I was compiling a list of intellectual inducements to revolution, I’d put Whig politics and the English legal system right up there, maybe higher, with religion, the Enlightenment (as loosely as that term is often applied)—including Jeffersonian/Painean rights of man, Franklinian science, rationalism, etc.—and the example of the ancients (noble Greece and Rome: Plato, Cicero, Cato and the rest). It difficult to overestimate its importance.
“It is you that does not understand the heritage of our founders & English history. The Reformation & the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s has everything to do with our revolution. It set the stage for what was to come.”
Not in my opinion. I put the heritage squarely at the Glorious Revolution. Cromwell was no Washington. Except in that it was an overreaching (or seemingly overreaching) monarch, not the same conditions.
“Again, the 1898 Wong Kim Ark opinion. He was a native - and NOT a natural born citizen as affirmed by justice Gray”
Not what Ark says.
“Nothing? Evidence of nothing? LoL!”
Yes, nothing. Unless you can point to some document that explicitly says why they addressed the issue in Elg but not Ark. And if the explicit answer is that Ark was so obviously not natural born that we didn’t think of addressing it, you dummy.
“What are the stricter standards pertaining to citizenship between the two?”
One requires natural born status, the other doesn’t.
“I see you are at the wishing well again.”
Wishing? If you don’t know that SCOTUS would declare native borns eligible 9-0 and are unaware of the reaction by the conservative establishment against the Birther movement, I have little to say to you.
“Well as you should recall, I obliterated your point”
I certainly don’t recall that.
“by showing you that Ms. Elg was ruled (affirmed) to be a natural born citizen because her parents were US citizens when she was born and she was born in the US of A”
Once again, this tells us nothing of the Ark case.
“Ms Elg’s case had nothing to do with presidential eligibility, but nonetheless the Supreme Court ruled her as an NBC. And...and Wong Kim Ark was only affirmed by Gray to be a citizen - and not a natural born citizen.”
But they didn’t say he wasn’t, because they didn’t address it. And for pete’s sake, just because they addressed it in Elg does not mean they had to in Ark.
“One day, you may get out of the denial stage and get to the acceptance stage.”
Blah, blah, blah, same thing back at you.
“Again, there are no words to describe your STUPIDITY! I’m done with ignorance as you have gone so far beyond that, that there is no other course to take.”
No, what’s stupid is to think the case for a common legal tradition between the U.S. and Britain has been exploded by posting some random Virginia law. 30 damn seconds on Google would teach you different.
“So Tublecane, are you going to answer RIO’s question?”
What is with all the impatience. I answer when I answer. Can’t do it all at once.
“ad hominem responses don’t lend credibility to your intellect or the legitimacy of your responses. You do realize this don’t you?”
Yes, I do. I also realize, according to your demonstrations, repeatedly calling people stupid is okay.
“I think it is beyond stupid.”
What, am I a retard? Autistic?
“Again, there are no words to describe your STUPIDITY! I’m done with ignorance as you have gone so far beyond that, that there is no other course to take.”
Big words for someone who spouts as much irrelevancy as you. How do I respond to attacks on my intelligence from a person who, for instance, took my recognition that there is such a thing as federal land, and that people are sometimes born on it, as implying that the federal government owns ALL the land. Especially after I gave Barry Goldwater as an example, which should take you a matter of moments to check.
“You don’t care about it because you can not refute it. Its you only defense and it reeks of desperation!”
Can’t refute it?!?! I just did. Read the 14th amendment. Read the Ark decision. Talk to any contemporary American who knows anything about citizenship law. The children of foreigners born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens. Schade was clearly and painfully wrong to count them as foreigners.
“So why does Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution say a President must be a Natural Born Citizen?”
Why do you keep asking this? You know why. They wanted the president to be a natural born citizen.
“With the successful conclusion of the War of 1776, the colonies, and later the U.S., no longer recognized the automatic inherited political allegiances from soil jurisdictions which had been the case in the colonies under the monarchy form of government of England. U.S. law does not recognize there to be political allegiances owed due to being born on soil jurisdictions.”
Whether or not they did is moot, as I’ve been saying all along. The 14th amendment, man. That’s where it’s at.
Most of the rest of that is gobbledy-gook, and compared to the actual writings of the Founders I find it pale, flighty, inconsequential, tepid, sour, and distasteful.
You're the dummy who originally agreed with r9etb that because there "are some around here" who say that Gray did not say WKA was a natural born citizen therefore he was not, which r9etb followed up with - "...Which is hooey.”
Then you exclaimed "Exactly." So again, if it is "hooey," then you agree that Wong Ark is a natural born citizen.
You further remarked,
"They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not."
So you concluded that since Justice Gray was not "deciding presidential eligibility" he therefore did not state or affirm Ark was a natural born citizen.
I then showed you your premise is flawed because Elg was ruled to be a natural born citizen and she was not running for president or was her case about presidential eligibility.
“English common law is pretty irrelevant.”
I know history books often talk out of their rears, but they must *really* be bunk. All this time the American legal, political, and philosophical system came out of nowhere in particular. Might as well been a colony of China, I guess.
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.