Posted on 04/23/2010 6:18:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Obama's supporters state there is no record the Founders used Vattel.
The second page shows the addition natural born citizen in 1787, the third page references Vattel.
After spending time on the entire link, I’m going to say take Prof. Yinger with a grain of salt. Everybody has an angle with this, some sort of agenda to push. His is trying to make foreign adoptees natural born citizens. This has been the pretext for several bills for Constitutional Amendment to alter the natural born citizenship clause, and it’s severely misguided, as is anyone who pushes the notion.
That doesn’t mean that the information contained in the research is not useful, just that the particular conclusion Yinger sought to reach is not to clarify the term natural born citizen, but to define it in a way that the Founders clearly would not have countenanced.
The Case you provide Wong Arc Kim is not on point with the discussion of the NBC requirement for the Office of the President. The Constitution requirement is more than the mere citizenship defined by the Wong decision.....
Wong addresses the simpler question of whether or not a person born in the US, to non citizens, was a US citizen. They held that he was indeed a US citizen....What they did not hold was that he met the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. This question was not even raised in Wong, and they did not rule on it.
The opinion you posted quotes British common Law’s definition of natural born subject. Being a natural born subject is not the Constitutional requirement to hold the Office of the President...Being a Natural Born Citizen is. NBS and NBC, while sounding similiar, are very evidently not one and the same thing...
I fail to understand the point you are trying to make, or how it relates to the question of Obama’s failure to meet constitutional requirements.....
I whole heartedly disagree with your supposition that the USSC is some sort of “Queen of Hearts” saying that the Law “means what it says it means, nothing more nothing less”.....In Effect you are giving rise to the legitimaticy of an activist court similiar to the one that gave Us Roe v Wade, Dred Scott, and other odious decisions....... I must strongly reject your opinion....
.....The primary function of the USSC is not to re-define the law to the prevalent, or the personal, bias’ of their day.....it is to apply the Constitutional Law to a specific case at hand, taking into account the written words of the law, the histotical context of it’s drafting, and the intent of the authors....What you suggest is legal chaos.
The one thing that truely binds us together as people is the commonality, and consistency of the law; and its application to its citizenry, the society at large, and it’s restraint on government.....to permit an activist court to run amok in our midst is pure folly....
I have to think that you misread this. It’s completely counter to the Biblical “begats” and leaves one to wonder just what sort of reproduction led to the first sons Cain and Abel, let alone the subsequent generations leading to Abrahm/Abraham.
Going into the Pseudepigraphica, there’s the first book of Enoch, the book of Jasher, etcetera, that go into detail about the fallen angels finding daughters of men attractive and desiring to produce offspring with them, something they were denied by God, but that they somehow managed to do, to the detriment of all Creation. There are hints about this in the canonical books of the Bible as well, most clearly in Genesis.
One of the primary reasons for the Biblical deluge was to wipe these literally ungodly creatures off the face of the Earth. They had committed a grave sin and had dragged all of Creation into it. That’s the reason Noah was described as being perfect in his generations. He wasn’t “contaminated” by these quasi-humans, or however you’d describe them.
It sounds very odd to those unfamiliar, like something out of a science fiction novel, but it’s there if you’re interested in reading about it.
I agree with you. I didn’t agree with the Professors conclusion either for adoptees as possibly being eligible for natural born citizens either, but I was interested in the notes from the Constitutional Convention and founders used in the article.
“the dissent, you may note, quoted Vittal’s definition. But minority opinions have not the force of law in this instance”
Picking and choosing again, huh?
Minority opinions not only dispute some of the Majority Opinion points, but also raise secondary issues not addressed in the Majority opinion. They do this in order to provide some food for thought/perspective, and limits on the Majority Opimion for any court using that case for deciding another case......In effect they do have your “Force of Law” because they effect the decisions of future courts that regularily qoute those Minority Opinions......
In Wong, the Minority Opinion says (paraphrased)... while none of us dispute the definition of NBC....quotes Vittal......there is some question as to what constitutes mere citizenship....
This is the question that the Wong Case decided, what constitutes mere citizenship.....birth in the US to legal residents, that were non-citizens, suffficed to establish citizenship per the Majority Opinion in Wong....
It is revealing that the Minority quotes Vittal’s NBC definition as being undisputed by the entire court, their difference of opinion was as to what constituted the simplier, but less clear question of what established mere citizenship.... something you fail to acknowledge, or understand.....
I’ll say again “What’s your point?”
The Wong Court, while acknowledging Vittal’s definition of a Natural Born Citizenship as undisputed, decided the question of what constituted mere citizenship in relation to Wong Arc Kim’s situation......
Shall I say it again for you?
“That is why SCOTUS is so important-—the Constitution means what they say it means.”
As a side note wasn’t it Andrew Jackson who said......
“They’ve made their decision, now let them try and enforce it!”
LOLOLOL
There is a gaggle of them where this guy came from.
It's one of the more useful individual links for that purpose that I've seen in a good while. Thank you for providing it. We're at least aware of the Professor's selective bias and can work around it, given the copious level of detail provided.
It's an admirable thing, wanting to help adoptees, don't get me wrong. But all too many people can't see past the immediate. There's a lot of intrigue and entanglement that could be introduced into the Executive Branch by seeking to do this. Several well-regarded Republicans have been sucked into it, including Inhofe and Coburn, who cosponsored a bill for Constitutional Amendment on these grounds.
The wording comes from Thomas Jefferson..guess he had something to do with Founding this country. This comes before the letter by John Jay to Washington.
"The first evidence to which I will refer on this point is a resolution reported to the Continental Congress in 1777, by a committee, of which Thomas Jefferson was chairman, and Mr Sherman, Mr Gerry, Mr Read, and Mr Williams were members. It is in these words;--
"Resolved, That it is inconsistant with the interest of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen therof to the office of minister...." "
Many groups have been working through the media to convince everybody that globalism is great and national sovereignty and independence is bad, so now there are many people that don't even see the loss of national sovereignty to some global authority independent of the people and our Constitution as a danger. People are being indoctrinated to be global citizens instead of American citizens.
found it..found the meaning natural born from Jefferson..will post in a few minutes..can u get a ping.
Yes, and most are either disrupters or fools!.....LOLOLOLOL
pls look post #395
How about engaging in some actual conversation instead of posting meaningless drivel? That'd be a good start.
I have been thinking about this for a while.
I very much doubt that.
you say: “.....The primary function of the USSC is not to re-define the law to the prevalent, or the personal, bias’ of their day.....it is to apply the Constitutional Law to a specific case at hand, taking into account the written words of the law, the histotical context of it’s drafting, and the intent of the authors....What you suggest is legal chaos.”
Is this a legal theory or is this the way things actually are? Last I checked this is simply originalist legal theory.
According to the court’s decisions in Wong Kim Ark, a person born a citizen is a NBC. And children of foreigners living in the US born in the US are natural born citizens. There is simply no difference in current US law between someone who becomes a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. All this nonsense about different kinds of citizens at birth-—natural born, native born, statutory-—is simply legal hogwash that does not exist at this time. If you think there should be, then get on the Supreme court and change it.
He didn't move. He just registered to vote in Wyoming.
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.