Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: patlin
This is interesting from your link to the Heritage Foundation article:

"[T]he gloss that has been placed on the Wong Kim Ark decision is actually much broader than the actual holding of the case.... Wong Kim Ark's parents were actually in this country both legally and permanently, yet were barred from even pursuing citizenship (and renouncing their former allegiance) by a treaty that closed that door to all Chinese immigrants. They were therefore as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they were legally permitted to be, and under those circumstances, it is not a surprise that the Court would extend the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship to their children. But the effort to read Wong Kim Ark more broadly than that, as interpreting the Citizenship Clause to con­fer birthright citizenship on the children of those not subject to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of the United States, not only ignores the text, history, and theory of the Citizenship Clause, but also permits the Court to intrude upon a plenary power assigned to Con­gress itself."

Thus when Obamabots cite the words of their founder Justice Gray in their 1898 constitution, aka Wong Kim Ark, as their justification for Obama's citizenship status, they fail to appreciate the substantive difference between his Kenyan British father [who had the right to seek American citizenship but didn't] and Wong Kim Ark's father [who had no right under Treaty with China to seek American citizenship and thus couldn't].

Wong's father was as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as the law allowed him to be, but Obama's father was not. And yet Wong was still not even a natural born citizen. One more leg that the Obamabots don't have to stand on.

304 posted on 05/02/2010 7:52:11 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip; patlin

WKA accepted natural born subject in English common law as the key to understanding natural born citizen in the Constitution. And in English common law, BOTH parents could be aliens, and the child a natural born subject UNLESS the parents were diplomats, or members of an invading army.

WKA would need to be overturned for Obama to be ruled ineligible based on his father’s citizenship.


315 posted on 05/02/2010 9:34:56 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson