The 14th amendment doesn't change or impact the definition of natural born citizen. It didn't declare anyone to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.
There is no distinction in the law between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. They are synomous terms.
Wrong. You can easily be a citizen at birth and NOT be a natural born citizen. I'm pretty sure we've already documented this.
I quote the following from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
What you quoted makes Obama a natural born subject, not a natural born citizen. You're not helping your own case.
I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant.
If this were true, you wouldn't post such lengthy replies trying vainly to disprove what I've posted.
The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time.
Please post one of these alleged briefs. I have a feeling your making up things now or you're perhaps conflating 'legal briefs' with 'faither blogs.'
Here’s a definition of legal standing from Wikipedia:
Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, "the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case" and is followed by "the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ..."
Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?
The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.
The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.
From the Court’s judgement:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. That the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is dismissed;
2. That respondent Secretary of State Debra Bowen shall recover costs in the amount of $350.00 pursuant to Government Code section 6103.5;
3. That respondent President Barack Obama shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;
4. That respondent Vice-President Joe Biden shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;”
“Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, “the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case” and is followed by “the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ...”
Please post one of these alleged briefs. I have a feeling your making up things now or you’re perhaps conflating ‘legal briefs’ with ‘faither blogs.’
I’m afraid that posting an entire legal brief on FreeRepublic would be a bit too much use of bandwidth but you can read the Court’s decision in “Ankeny v Daniels” and see how many times the Justices make reference to information in the brief filed by the Attorney General of Indiana (a conservative Republican, by the way) in defense of Barack Obama.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
And here is the Court’s order denying “Donofrio v Wells” in which the trial judges make reference to the due diligence in confirming Barack Obama’s (and John McCain’s) status as a Natural Born Citizen. The Court makes reference to the brief of the Attorney General of New Jersey and to other cases before the US Supreme Court which verified Obama’s birthplace as Hawaii.
http://www.scribd.com/full/22677941?access_key=key-1xz5n7vg96tywp2ukwsc
If neither of those lawsuits is good enough for you, I’ll be happy to post judgements and references to defense briefs from any of the other 64 Obama eligibility cases for your perusal.
You might also find the following to be of interest:
At least five of the nine justices currently on the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1997). A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father.
Justice Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”
Justices Scalia and Thomas in concurrence: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Ibid.”
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in Dissent: “I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669—671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)).”
Justice Sotomayor quoted Wong in a dissenting opinion from a 2nd Circuit opinion that suggested that because Bermudans were not “subjects” or “citizens” of the UK, they were not covered in the alienage jurisdiction of federal courts. Sotomayor wrote that this gave foreign jurisdictions the power to trump our laws in a way that was unacceptable.
Her view was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2002 in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (in another case that cited Wong Kim Ark) which brings Justice Kennedy into the group of justices that have endorsed Wong.
Of the current sitting justices, only Justices Alito and Roberts haven’t cited Wong. Justice Alito, however, came from the Third Circuit where the circuit decided the same issue that Sotomayor faced and decided it the same way as Sotomayor and the Supreme Court – Southern Cross v. Wah Kwong.