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 ...
The 14th Amendment naturalized his child because he was born under our Jurisdiction. After being freed (or deported), His father could assert his foreign citizenship if he liked, for he and his child, and tell us all to go to hell and go back to his hut in Kenya( or Indonesia) with his child. 20 years later the child could come back and assert his Naturalized American citizenship, with grand illusions of transforming the hell hole that injured his father into a Communist Utopia. (Dreams from a Kenyan Sleazebag).
Sounds familiar?
This is something the founders tried to avoid with the NBC clause. The intentional destruction of our nation.
So why did WKA need the 14th? He wasn’t a slave, was he?
We do agree that the 14th was created to Naturalize. We are picking nits.
Obama needed the 14th to become a citizen. Otherwise he is simply a British citizen. He is a “14th” anchor baby.
Snip???? What the hell are you talking about? What do you imagine was snipped??
MMaschin noted that Fuller was stating the holding in Minor, and on that he was correct. Clearly he used the syllabus, which states the holding. That’s not in question.
You Obots need to get your stories straight. I've been told by at least one that the syllabus ISN'T the holding. In your confusion about what it is, you're evading the inconvenient fact. Virginia Minor's (and women as a class) were held to be citizens by virtue of citizen parents in rejection of the 14th amendment citizen clause. It acknowledges a class of citizenship that is separate and unique from the 14th amendment. Compounded with the statement in Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment doesn't define natural-born citizens, while quoting Minor's definition of NBC, forms a trifecta that negates Obama from being eligible.
Where you get debunked is that neither the syllabus nor what MMaschin cited where the Court described the holding includes the dicta about “natural born”.
It doesn't have to. A) It disproves the Obot claims that citizenship is NOT part of the holding. B) This part of the holding comes from the part of the decision that exclusively characterizes people fitting this criteria as natural-born citizens. C) The holding, criteria and verbiage are ALL confirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision. D) The same logic defeats the Obot presumption that Wong Kim Ark defined NBC according to common-law and/or the 14th amendment - the term NBC is NOT in the syllabus. For your argument to have much weight, then you have to admit that your other belief is wrong. It's wrong anyway based specifically on the dicta in WKA, but this new line of argument, like most other Obot arguments is flawed.
Where Fuller wrote that he “cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”, arguing in part:
Why is that reason to dissent?
Fuller is responding to part of the appeal from the lower court, which was based on a citation where the child of a Chinese citizen was characterized as a "natural-born citizen." The majority opinion does not does not repeat nor create this characterization. I've challenged Obots to find any passage that does, which they've failed to find. They can't because it's not there. Resorting to a misunderstood citation from the dissent does NOT create the missing passage.
In that same Dissent he also wrote:
“In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government.”
Fuller’s own judgement *disagrees* with what he cited to Vattel. Fuller’s dissent and the Court’s majority opinion both disagreed with Vattel, though in different directions.
No actually, they don't. You're not reading very closely. Fuller's point about persons born abroad is based on "the standpoint of this Government", not on disagreement with Vattel. This jibes with the Minor decision, which cited the Naturalization Act of 1790 that said persons born abroad of citizen parents are considered as NBCs. That characterization IS from the "standpoint of this Government." And technically, Vattel says citizenship follows the condition of the father regardless of the place of birth. In that sense, the NA of 1790 follows Vattel. That doesn't make the children born in the country of aliens into natural-born citizens and it doesn't negate that the Minor definition of NBC matches Vattel's. Nothing in the majority opinion in WKA negates Minor's definition of NBC that matches Vattel's.
What’s more instructive is that the opinions are not written at the third-grade level.
This explains why you have such a hard time understanding what it says.
Citation, even quotation, does not imply agreement.
Except when both the citation and quotation agree. Fuller's quotation of Vattel matches the citation of the holding in Minor. This is an inescapable fact and point of law. Gray respected that definition and resorted to a different term for 14th amendment citizenship.
Interpreting precedents and tracking which control is a challenging task.
That's okay. I'm here to help. We'll take as much time as you need to understand it and get it right.
Jack Maskell actually has the expertise that so many birthers pretend.
It's too bad he doesn't show it in the CRS memo. I pointed out several errors earlier in this thread of things he simply fabricated. Why do you think he lied??
You are correct on original intent of the 14th. Original intent bars US citizenship to our Kenyan President.
Excellent find on the clipping.
yep - he got his 30 pieces of silver. - me
Well then cite your evidence that he received some bribe to to slant his analysis. Surely, Triple, you wouldn’t compare a man to Judas without such evidence, would you? - BB
I never said bribe. He drew a salary, and produced a biased report, IMO. His salary is his payment.
I think what we need to also point out is that Obamas father had sovereignty over his child. We all need to recognize that his custody required legal consent from a foreign citizen in a foreign country.
When he returned from Indonesia, we believe his Father was required to be present to consent to his new custodial arrangements in the USA.
I do wonder if Obama Sr. testified in US courts, and if such testimony he declared his sons Kenyan citizenship.
I wonder if this could be obtained by an FOIA request.
Page 5 of Breckinridge:
“Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.”
That is fairly clear. To be constitutionally “natural born” you have to retain that status FROM birth, not just AT birth. Not that Obama had that status AT birth if the legally accepted birth circumstances are correct.
After years of analysis by an intelligent lawyer...yes, at minimum it would be reasonable to expect he not mispell the subject of said legal analysis, year after year.
I've got a lot more than that b.t.w., a portion of which can be found here.
Oh...and have a great day!
Several points regarding this. Wong Kim Ark wasn't a slave, he was the child of Chinese immigrants who were bared by treaty between China and the United States from becoming citizens. Wong Kim Ark could not claim Jus Sanguinus for citizenship, and so they argued that the 14th amendment was operative.
A lot of people argue that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, and that Wong should not have been declared a citizen at all, that there were other means of remedying his situation, and that the Supreme court intentionally disregarded Statements by Legislators regarding the 14th amendment which would have clarified that Wong would not qualify under it's provisions. In other words, the court was legislating from the bench.
I will note that the 14th amendment did NOT give citizenship to Indians until 1924 through an act of congress.
I agree. Without the 14th, Obama would not even BE a citizen, and that's ONLY if he really was born in this country, a "fact" which has not been determined conclusively.
no controlling legal authority
My guess is in 2013 if this ever goes to the Congress,(it won't see the light of day until then IMHO), if the argument is framed according to the founders desires it will be that both parents had to be born here.Otherwise no nbc.IMHO,the founders wanted no question about a potential President's allegiance. Zero being the perfect example.
The only Birthers left at this point are the True Believers.
I guess you're probably right about that.
And the rule of the True Believers is: It simply doesn't matter what the facts are. Any facts that don't align with their "reality" are "bogus" and can be safely disregarded.
BladeBryan is an 0b0t retread who used to post as Drew68...
things that make you go hmmmm
“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";
Let’s read it and see who’s lying. Long argues:
“Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.”
Oh look — he wants to apply the law from *more* than a century ago, though writing 95 years ago.
DiogenesLamp cites: “1884:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States";
Is that too hard a subtraction problem for you, to figure out that 1884 is more than a century ago? Or are you justified in disputing my claim of “in our time” because you are over 127 yeas old? Here again are the claims you were trying to refute:
Whether or not it was the conspiracy you imagine, the CRS report does recognize the time scale: “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.
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.
SatinDoll wrote: “You’re full of crap. Jack Haskell is a traitor who has worked to undermine this government and collapse it from within, just like the others who’ve been a part of this un-American effort.”
That kind of smear is what I was just talking about in post 108. Congress’s expert refutes you, so you have to fold him into the evil conspiracy in your head.
yep - he got his 30 pieces of silver. - Triple
Well then cite your evidence that he received some bribe to to slant his analysis. Surely, Triple, you wouldn’t compare a man to Judas without such evidence, would you? - BB
I never said bribe. He drew a salary, and produced a biased report, IMO. His salary is his payment. - Triple
Are you actually going to pretend that you didn’t know what “30 pieces of silver” evokes? That a man earning his regular salary is the same thing?
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.