Ummm...a different one. 
/Lounge Lizard
Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a "resident within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen"
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Of course you are correct Blade. I was in too much of a hurry. Sadly, it hardly matters. The lines between branches are disappearing. Czars operate independently of the Congress and report only to the executive. Justice reports to the Executive. Solicitors general get moved to the Supreme Court to continue their work supporting the Revolution - “Change.” The CIA director is moved to defense. Jack Maskill was the author of the two previous propaganda papers, ignoring not just precedent, but also, like Obama’s Con Law Professor, avoiding our most famous Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall, who made the common law so crystalline in 1814. Maskill too works for the regime, no longer a separate branch, as an unelected soldier in the propaganda apparatus.
Interesting too that it was Maskill, working for the legislature, who wrote the two earlier papers hidden from public scrutiny, informing Congress on how to deal with eligibility questions. He never acknowledged the Minor v. Happersett citation near the beginning of Wong Kim Ark, Maskill’s presumed authority. He is a paid henchman. It was Congress's charter to confirm eligibility, as they didn't ever do for McCain, though they tried. This blurring of responsibilities clearly reflects the descent into autocracy and dictatorship. If Congress or the courts are an obstacle, ignore them. Shortly, separate branches will be purely a ceremonial legacy. The majority who want nothing of Obamacare, or cap-and-trade, or our support for the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of the Middle East, have no representation worth the name.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “The Word ‘Nation’ is derived from the same root as ‘Natal’ (meaning of birth) and it has nothing to do with dirt.”
True. What’s more, the word “natural” goes back to the same origin, by way of the Latin ‘naturalis’, meaning “by birth, according to nature”.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=natural
The etymology is yet more evidence that “Natural-born” means by and from birth. The term references neither place nor parentage; only birth itself. “Natural-born United States citizen” means a United States citizen who became a United States citizen at the moment of his or her birth. [Paraphrased from United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
I wrote, addressing the wrong person: “Pointing out that you had the Congressional Research Service in the wrong branch of government required only the most basic grade-school-level understanding.”
Oops. In that comment I mis-attributed the error. It was not philman_36 who had the wrong branch of government. I noticed my mistake when I read Spaulding’s post, number 121 in this thread, in which he corrected himself on that point. I regret my error. Probably should have held back on that “grade-school” crack ‘least until I double-checked my target. Oops.
What argument should she have brought?
Actually if you read the decision, the court ruled that Mrs. Minor had no voting rights at all, citizen or no citizen. And the type of citizenship made no difference.
This argument was rejected because Virginia Minor fit the court's definition of the Constitutional term in Art. II, Sec I - "natural-born citizen" - born in the country to citizen parents.
So are you saying that had she not fit the court's definition of the Constitutional term in Art. II, Sec I - "natural-born citizen" - then the court would have ruled that she would have been able to vote?
I don’t know what the going rate for thirty pieces of silver is just now, but YEP.
“Cowards.”
YES.
“It’s questioning whether they are citizens [AT ALL, NEVER MIND NBCs]. It also does NOT say that some authorities hold such persons to be NBCs.”
FIOFY (Fleshed It Out For You)
Virginia Minor did not need the 14th. Presidents did not need the 14th until Obama was elected. But, the problem is, the NBC clause was never amended. We added the 14th to naturalize children of immigrants. This is why Obama has had several legal citizenships. He needed naturalization. This is why our own government couldn't figure out if he was a citizen when he came back from Indonesia.
Mr. Obama is an example of a Cluster-Fluck of citizenships.
Their "experts" have no authority to redefine constitutional terms either.
Ummm...a different one.
/Lounge Lizard
Wasn’t the 14th to actually ‘fix’ the problem that some of the Southern States would not grant state-level citizenship t the freed slaves? And it purpose was to fix these issues still left over from the civil war and slavery?
Was the unintended by-product was ‘anchor babies’?
How is any of that relevant to the issue here?
Quite simple. It demonstrates the long and firmly held belief among conservatives that our courts do not administer law as much as they administer their own personal political opinions and call it law. The point of that article is that there are FOUR Justices willing to eradicate the second amendment, but according to your arguments, if they had one more on their side, and they SAID SO, then you would salute and say "It must be so."
My asking for your opinion on that article was specifically to bring you face to face with the point that I have been trying to get through to you; That Judges may have power, but they don't decide "truth."
Wrong decisions should not be granted respectability, and instead such decisions and those who make such decisions, should be treated with open disgust and contempt. It is our DUTY to call out the Courts when they decide something WRONGLY, and it is our Duty to FORCE the courts to decide the law CORRECTLY.
"We the people" should never let them forget who are the masters.
It doesn't mean by "circumstances of birth", it means genetically by birth. Did you not see the related word Gnasci i.e. Genus? "Partus sequitur Patrem" dude.
The etymology is yet more evidence that “Natural-born” means by and from birth. The term references neither place nor parentage; only birth itself. “Natural-born United States citizen” means a United States citizen who became a United States citizen at the moment of his or her birth. [Paraphrased from United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
You need to dig deeper. Natural, Nature, and Naturalis are not referring to location, but to characteristics inherent in the organism. You will not make a Giraffe into a Crocodile by birthing it in the swamp.
And more knowledgeable ones are aware that it was the custom in the early 19th century that the wife automatically took the citizenship of the husband upon marriage, and that any offspring were always born to whatever the Husband's nationality was. This was codified into American law in 1854.
Long story short, both views are correct, depending on how you wish to look at it.
BladeBryan wrote: “What’s more, the word “natural” goes back to the same origin, by way of the Latin ‘naturalis’, meaning “by birth, according to nature”.”
That is completely INCORRECT. If the term ‘natural’ was to bean ‘since birth’ as you say - then ‘natural born’ is redundant, and makes no sense.
There are 2 types of laws - positive law, which are those created by man, such as the Constitution, and laws originating in the legislature - and NATURAL LAW, which is the laws of nature or the Divine.
The founders referred to natural law often, an example is in the Declaration when they mention “unalienable Rights”.
The term is ‘natural born Citizen’. Notice the ‘C’ is capitalized. They did this to show that it is a proper noun. That means that ‘natural’, and ‘born’ are adjectives. ‘Born’ means exactly what you would think = since birth. ‘Natural’ means exactly what it says, through ‘natural law’.
The term ‘natural born Citizen’ means - a US citizen, as defined by the laws of nature, from the time of birth.
What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.
Given that I have repeatedly posted the following which completely disproves your statement, I can only come to the conclusion that you are LYING when you say that.
1916:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
At this point, I will remember you have definitely been notified as to the untruth of your statement. Should you make it again, I am going to call you a liar, and I am going to link my comments back to this post where you were notified once again that this issue has a long history, and is not the result of people picking on poor little idiot Barack.
And just for good measure, we'll throw in the Boston Globe, 1896.
Sorry, have to pick a nit with you. We added the 14th to naturalize former Slaves, (not immigrants) who had no claim to citizenship through jus sanguinus.
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.