Posted on 07/14/2023 12:30:28 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
What a joke. This (14th) only added confusion and doubt to the matter.
Most legal scholars have been barking up the wrong tree.
But this debate over NBC has raged on since 1787 and from that time forward the scholars and experts still disagree.
The problems with Natural Born Citizen were deliberately created by William Rawle who wrote a book, ("A View of the Constitution") That deliberately represented birth in a nation as the only requirement for citizenship.
His book became quite prominent in the early legal colleges and it was widely read by the legal people of that era. (1829s and later.)
Rawle Deliberately misled people as to the truth, and his book was responsible for leaving many legal scholars with an incorrect understanding of US Citizenship.
Now I say he deliberately misled people because he was told by the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that he was wrong about this, and yet he did it anyway. He only published his book after everyone who could contradict him had died, but there does exist a book in which they clearly show Rawle to be wrong, and Rawle was himself very aware of this book because it was a prominent legal book in the 1800s.
Anyone confidently stating that the Framers knew exactly what they were doing and they clearly put into words what they meant is kidding themselves.
You follow the evidence, and when the evidence leads you to a conclusion, it is the best you can do.
And anyone looking back these 236 years and stating there is no ambiguity in natural citizens, natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens is just a fool.
Well let me ask you this. What did they call "citizens" before 1776?
Why did we change to start using the word "citizen"?
Make your point in any way you want. And there will be legal Constitutional experts who will show you how wrong you are.
Of that I have no doubt. They will say "This court said..." and "That court *SAID*.." and they will urge me to believe something is *TRUE* because a court *SAID SO*.
And that is all the proof they will provide.
I have long ago rejected the idea that I should believe something is true because a court *SAYS SO.*
The Courts say a man is a woman. The courts are liars. Some are just ignorant, but most are just liars.
I don't ask people to believe courts' assertions. I ask people to look at the evidence with their own eyes, and come to what they think is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
And the evidence does lead in a different direction than what "the Courts" claim.
It wasn’t. Dukakis wasn’t black.
Congress has to change the birthright BS. It would take the USSC to return Constitutionality to the presidential citizenship eligibility rules. But I think it is too late for all that. I believer the time is very near to when the Constitution is declared to be void or to be advisory only by the administration which will not functionally change with the next phony election. Or it will just be overtly ignored along with the USSC or the Court will bee forcibly changed or disbanded.
Its been a long time but a few cases went to court over obamas BC, one obamas attorney’s just didn’t even show up.
You are wrong.
The discussion by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark about the meaning of the term “natural born” and his discussion of the derivation of the term “natural born citizen” is at the least “judicial dictum”. This is different from the “orbiter dictum” found in Minor v Happersett. In Kaye v Hughes Luce, LLP (2007) the District Court for the Northern District of Texas described judicial dictum as “an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.”
The U.S. Government argued in their appellant brief that the district court erred in ruling Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen” and further argued that it was inappropriate for a child born in the U.S. to alien Chinese parents to be eligible to the presidency. But it was not essential to the decision that Justice Gray rule Wong eligible to be president or use the term “natural born”.
Compare that to the “orbiter dictum” in Minor v Happersett where all parties agreed that Minor was a citizen and it did not matter to the case whether she was natural born or naturalized.
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.