Posted on 10/19/2012 11:59:50 AM PDT by NTHockey
I visited the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Wednesday. While on the tour, one of the staff members came up and asked me if I wanted to be President. I said that I was ineligible, since my mother was naturalized after I was born. He argued that since I was born here that I was born here that I was natural.
We went back and forth; he not knowing the difference between native born and natural born and I refusing to back down.
I plan to write the head and tell him that their staff needs to be a) better informed and b) less combative. Comments.
‘And that statement has nothing to do with your theory which is that anyone born within the geographical boundaries of the nation is a “natural” citizen of this nation.’
__
Nope, wrong again. That’s not my theory at all, it’s the unanimous opinion of all the cases I cited above.
It’s clear that you consider your own opinion to be worth more than that of all the learned judges who have ruled on this question. You are of course entitled to your opinion, and as soon as some court agrees with you, that opinion will have some legal force.
Until then, you’re just another of those people who are convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
What you have demonstrated is that ignorance and misunderstanding are wide spread in our legal system, but anyone who's been watching it for the last several decades already knew that. Other evidence that it is severely dysfunctional is the Kelo Decision, Lawrence v Texas, Wickard v Fillburn, Roe v Wade, etc.
Anyone singing the praises of our dysfunctional legal system self identifies as an idiot in my book.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there is clearly a widespread judicial consensus that finds your position to be “frivolous” and “without merit.”
Sometimes a majority means that all the fools are on the same side. A decision that justifies "Anchor babies" means that our legal system has jumped the shark. (Which again, those who pay attention already knew.)
Oh it does, that's why it is on the face of it, nonsense.
Now, all you have to do is find a judge who views it the same way.
How’s that going so far?
About as well as attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sometimes it simply doesn't matter if you are correct when Judges have their heads up their A$$. I personally do not find Judges necessary for determining what is the truth. It stands on it's own merits despite their pronouncements.
They have a common misunderstanding of precedent, but that is often the case with a legal system which thinks the 14th amendment created a right to abortion. Once the system is polluted with a common idiocy, it is d@mned hard to filter it back out again.
What is “naturalization at birth”?
Once all the exalted people of the world pronounced it flat. They were wrong as well. Facts are not subject to consensus, even the consensus of those who hold power.
The only people who know the truth are the ones who have researched it from it's origins, not those who simply seized upon the Opinions of others hundreds of years later.
Your argument involves a curious combination of “the entire world determines citizenship the correct way” and “the entire world is full of idiots.”
“You know that, I know that, the State Department knows that, the Supreme Court knows that, but several FReepers do not believe that.”
They are clinging to a definition from a French speaking Swissman, who died before the Constitution was written, and who’s definition was stated to pertain to the Swiss.
Dodge some more. If you agree with it, then it's YOUR THEORY.
It’s clear that you consider your own opinion to be worth more than that of all the learned judges who have ruled on this question.
Why yes I do. That's because I do not need a Judge to tell me what the facts are, I'm perfectly capable of looking at the evidence and drawing my own conclusions. I feel sorry for people like you, who don't know what to believe until they can find a judge that will tell them what to think. Poor little sheep.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and as soon as some court agrees with you, that opinion will have some legal force.
Well see, force is the thing, isn't it? It doesn't matter what the actual truth is, it only matters what the people with the guns tell you it is. You are such a good little comrade. As for me, i'm an American. We talk back to our "betters."
Until then, you’re just another of those people who are convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
Just like Einstein when he overturned Newton. He was right, everyone else was wrong. Some people, such as yourself, wallow in the comfort of the common thought. You wouldn't feel comfortable as an independent thinker. Indeed, you appear incapable of it.
Not to agree with your premise, but even if it were true, the two things are not mutually exclusive.
I'm all ears. Please proceed.
The very fact that it requires a special act of law to make someone a citizen is absolute proof that they are not a "NATURAL" citizen.
One of the dumbest but oft repeated birther truisms disregards that the Constitution itself is an act of law. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress shall make no law defining citizenship of any sort they choose? Congress has been making laws defining citizenship and retroactively granting citizenship to various classes of people since the Founding. The key problem with birthers is their utter incapability to view history linearly and recognize the state of the law as it applies to the present.
Since you scoffed at the 14th, George Edwin Taylor, born to a slave father, ran for president in 1904. A whole slew of candidates who did not become president failed to meet the birther definition. Chester Arthur and Barack Obama both fail to meet the birther requirement.
Let me put this bluntly: you have to be literally INSANE to believe that the Supreme Court will EVER declare the 21st and 44th Presidents of The United States to have been ineligable and subsequently negate all their acts as president. Please beem yourself back down to the planet as you are living in an unhealthy place.
Yeah, his name was Aristotle, and he lived 2,500 years ago.
Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
In truth and fact, Citizenship by Parentage has always been the standard throughout most of Human History. The English only developed their peculiar twist on it due to a Royal succession problem dealing with the fact that the Heir to the Throne was born in Scotland after it was acquired by the joining of the crowns under King James IV and I. He wasn't born of English Parents, so they had to come up with a gimmick to make him a legitimate heir to the crown of England.
Roman and Greek Law had always held that citizens were the children of citizens. Even the Latin word for country "Patria" means "Land of my father. " (Latin word for father is Pater.)
If you are a truth_seeker, seeks some truth.
Okay, let's start slow. There are two pieces of evidence placing Stanley Ann Dunham in Seattle in the later half of August. Her enrollment to attend the Washington University, and the testimony of her friend Susan Blake.
Do you need me to hunt up the links which establish these two pieces of evidence, or are you already familiar with them?
While I am waiting for your answer, i'll just drop this link here where you can see it.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=34618044
Scroll down and look at where here two infant sons were buried and when.
True. He was refering to the Naturalization Act of 1790. Not sure if you have been keeping track, but immigration law has been updated a few times since then.
Mark Levin may be misguided and uninformed, but you are just an idiot.
One of the dumbest but oft repeated birther truisms disregards that the Constitution itself is an act of law.
And it does not presume to define "natural born citizen" because the founders knew that no act of man could change what is Natural Law.
Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress shall make no law defining citizenship of any sort they choose?
Is it really worth my time to show you? I CAN show you, but I don't perceive you as having the competence to understand it. I'm not going to bother looking it up. You look it up if you want. It's under congresses power to naturalize.
Congress has been making laws defining citizenship and retroactively granting citizenship to various classes of people since the Founding.
They have been using their enumerated power of "naturalization", which means "to make like Natural." Note this is not the same thing as being natural, it is making something "like natural." It is the legal equivalent of adoption.
The key problem with birthers is their utter incapability to view history linearly and recognize the state of the law as it applies to the present.
I would say that this is the problem with you folk. The fact that there were several hundreds of thousands of British Loyalists before, during and After the Revolutionary war, and who did not become American Citizens, though they were born in the United States, is a massive amount of evidence that your theory is incorrect, yet here you are trying to make us believe this nonsense because you are incapable of recognizing the state of the law as it applied to the past.
Since you scoffed at the 14th, George Edwin Taylor, born to a slave father, ran for president in 1904. A whole slew of candidates who did not become president failed to meet the birther definition. Chester Arthur and Barack Obama both fail to meet the birther requirement.
The People in Chester Arthur's time knew very well that a President must be a "natural citizen". They just did not know at the time that Chester Arthur was not. Now that Barack has come along, people have simply forgotten what this seldom studied and seldom used component of Constitutional law really meant.
Perhaps Breckinridge Long (1916) can explain it to you, though I very much doubt it. You have a mental density that is likely impenetrable by facts or logic.
Later people. That’s all the ignorance/stupidity I can put up with for today.
It originally worked as the Founders willed; and, that was the right way to do it. Liberal panty-waste judges and dirtbag Conressmen may have things working the way you indicate. I'll spend the rest of my life trying to push it all back to the original methods.
“Dodge some more. If you agree with it, then it’s YOUR THEORY.”
__
Nope, wrong yet again! I never said I agreed with it. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be omniscient or infallible, and I understand — unlike you — that, as far as the U.S. legal community is concerned, my personal opinion is worthless.
What I am pointing out to you that all the judges say you’re wrong and none of the judges say you’re right. Whether you like it or not, judicial opinions have great weight in this country. There are plenty of court decisions that I dislike, but I don’t bloviate like a fool insisting that my opinions ought to be taken more seriously than those of the courts.
This requires a double LOL! I don't need the position of birthers explained by other historical birthers. I understand the birther argument. I understand where and why you derive your position. But I reject it wholely just as history has rejected it. The very article you quote is about a Charles Evans Hughes who ran for president. The fact that your distinguished mouthpiece happened to be working for the Wilson campaign and also happened to ironically quote Chester Arthur who failed to meet the author's own definition of natural born is additionally funny.
Don't you find it odd that the campaign manager for the sitting president was unable to use your very argument to disqualify an opponent almost a century ago? You can call me all the names in the book and sleep well knowing that your are "right", whilst I will sleep soundly knowing that no one gives a sh!t.
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.