As I already showed you a few posts up Mr Rogers, Lynch was found by the court to be a "citizen" and what you keep refering to is the opinion of the Editor of that publication, Samuel Owen.
You may not like the fact that the first circuit court of New York found Lynch to be a "citizen", but that's precisely how they ruled.
Regarding that state of Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents
Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in
Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14
What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.
It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC anyway?.
That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.
Instead of looking to state court cases, which found Lynch and WKA to be "citizens", I prefer to look to the Federal level when dealing with the Federal Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Waite, Justice Story and the House of Representatives that debated the issue of citizenship leading to the 14th Amendment (in particular framer Bingham) were all in agreement on who a "natural born Citizen" is.
Chief Justice Marshall:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
in
THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814).
Here, we see the great Chief Justice Marshall (who would have studied Vattel's legal treatise "Law of Nations" at the country's first law school...the College of William and Mary...introduced to the school's curriculum in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson) directly quoting, by name, Vattel's work specifically regarding citizenship. Chief Justice Waite:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,"
in
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
 |
| John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest! “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
|
| No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.
|
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)
|
|
The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country. |
|
Found this on a GLP thread.
What are looking at is the gost image of the 08 COLB behind the long form. Why would that be
there and facing the back of the long form supposedly bound in a book?
“what you keep refering to is the opinion of the Editor of that publication, Samuel Owen.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No wonder you get your butt kicked in every case! You don’t know the difference between the opinion of the court, and an editor of a volume. Samuel Owen edited the “New York Legal Observer”, which compiled the various decisions.
Again, with the Indiana decision, you write “It’s “immaterial” according to this ridiculous state court ruling.” If you don’t know why they wrote that, you shouldn’t comment on legal cases. There is more to a decision that “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”. Until you understand that, you won’t win any cases.
And perhaps you can tell me why YOU feel free to quote dicta, but ignore the dicta of other cases? Or perhaps you think what you quoted - and BTW, WKA was NOT a state case - is the decision and not the argument used to arrive at the decision?