Posted on 05/28/2011 11:34:18 PM PDT by Nachum
And no, I’m not interested in arguing the point. I’ve already been involved in enough discussion about the issue, thank you very much.
I am merely pointing out that FReepers have a range of opinion on a variety of issues, including this one. And if our tent isn’t big enough to really include people who believe that Bobby Jindal can be President, or that a child who happened to be born an American citizen abroad can grow up to become President, then we have a pretty darn small tent indeed.
I didn’t mean to imply that your posts are abusive, only that the abuse button is the normal way to bring situations to the attention of the moderators.
I had assumed that since no action had been taken after all these weeks, there must be no serious objection by the folks in charge. You have confirmed that.
So, hitting the abuse button would, in all probability, have produced no results at all.
Do you object to the fundraising posts that appear in every thread during the occasional FReepathon? What about the Sarah Palin bus tour posts/video links that are now appearing? You probably missed the similar anti-Romney posts that were appearing a while back. How about endless posts by rank and file FReepers mentioning "Bush's Fault", "moose and cheese", "stuned beebers", and the like?
This is all part of the culture at Free Republic. You are free to ignore any or all of this stuff as you see fit but you aren't likely to be able to change any part of that culture.
“And if our tent isn’t big enough to really include people who believe that Bobby Jindal can be President, or that a child who happened to be born an American citizen abroad can grow up to become President, then we have a pretty darn small tent indeed.”
Cripes, now you’re over the edge. Don’t like the tent? Go find another one, Jagov. There’s a lot of ‘em.
Now there's a post for proving my point.
Always glad to oblige. Always. Need anything else?
Nope. That’ll do. :-)
>> “but that post at the beginning of every Sarah Palin thread is starting to get a bit old for some of us.” <<
.
There are other forums if you prefer. It is important to keep on pointing out that Obama is totally illegitimate.
There is no legitimate contention on what Natural Born means.
Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed.
>> “ Wong Kim Ark especially seems pretty clear to me that the legal and judicial precedent is that it doesn’t take both jus soli and jus sanguinis to make a natural born citizen.” <<
.
Obviously, you have not read WKA!
.
>> United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
In the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that 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”.
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
Yes, and what if there's really no solid proof that the birth certificate is a forgery, and no solid proof that "natural born citizen" requires both jus soli and jus sanguinis?
Do we in that case still keep blowing trumpets of things that don't add up, and tell those of us who are opposed to Obama and his policies, but who don't buy into the birther doctrine to go pound sand? In spite of the fact that neither theory actually adds up?
Because that seems to me to be what you're proposing: that unless you're a birther, you're not welcome here.
I just don't believe that alienating fellow conservatives is a good idea. From my point of view, birtherism is not the essential, must-believe doctrine of FreeRepublic.
You’re in fantasy land!
The birth certificate is irrelevant. Every Supreme Court decision that has addressed citizenship has stated that Natural Born requires two citizen parents.
Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed.
Sorry, but this is simply nonsense.
Find me ONE statement -- JUST ONE EXPLICIT STATEMENT FROM ANY US SUPREME COURT RULING that state that BOTH jus soli AND jus sanguinis ARE REQUIRED for natural born citizen status.
You can't do it, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
What DOES exist are statements to the effect of, "IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED that those who met both qualifications were natural born..." (whereas there HAS BEEN some DOUBT about the other categories.
Doubting or dispute of a matter does NOT mean that it's not true. It means that it HASN'T REALLY BEEN DECIDED.
On the other hand, there are lots of statements within Wong Kim Ark that imply that ONLY jus soli is required for natural born status.
The Supreme Court has noted that the Constitution must be understood within the context of English common law, because that was the context and understanding in which it was framed.
In that context, Justice Gray, writing the majority opinion of WKA (which was dissented to by only two Justices), writes:
...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects.
...this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke... that,
if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,
and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . .
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Great Britain considers and treats such persons [those born within its borders] as natural-born subjects, and cannot therefore deny the right of other nations to do the same.
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet... "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject."
You talk about adhering to the Constitution, but apparently you're only willing to adhere to the Constitution if it says what you want it to say.
The moment it stops saying what you want it to say, you're prepared to ditch it.
I'm not prepared to ditch the Constitution on your opinion OR mine. The meaning of the Constitution must stand above a popular vote if it to stand at all.
If you don't like what the Constitution says, then change it. There is a process for Constitutional amendment, and that process has been exercised quite a few times in our national history.
But don't throw its words out of the window based on your opinion.
I don't claim that "there is no legitimate contention" that jus soli is sufficient for NBC status. The fact is, no Supreme Court ruling addressing the specific requirements and definition of NBC status for the purpose of Presidential eligibility has ever been made. And some arguments were, in fact, made in the MINORITY opinion of WKA, to which two of the USSC Justices adhered.
But to claim that "there is no legitimate contention... that it means two parents must be citizens" is just nonsense, when our clearest court case seems pretty clearly to indicate otherwise.
This was the discussion I told you I didn't want to get into.
Why don’t you just read the court opinions yourself?
Because you are here to weaken the country?
You’re not conservative judging by your posting.
A post of complete nonsense.
Go read the decisions:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Each one of those opinions says two parents that are citizens.
Unlike you,
I like what the constitution says!
The constitution says that a president must be a Natural Born Citizen.
The definition of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the constitution was a person born in the country with two citizen parents.
Four US Supreme Court decisions have acknowledged that Natural Born means a person born in the US with two parents that are citizens.
Your whinning about what British law says is dishonest and irrelevant to this issue.
Please keep posting it. I never tire of seeing it.
Happy to see your still posting that post.
In our current situation, it very relevant.
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.