Anti-Palin Books Proving to Be Commercial Flops

American Thinker ^ | 5/29/11 | Steve Flesher

[Jeff Winston]

A post of complete nonsense.

Yes, well, I notice you assert that it's "complete nonsense," and yet you don't attempt to refute even one single point.

Because you can't. Heck, most of the post consists of direct quotation from the majority opinion in one of the cases that you cite.

You said:

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.

Do you think I haven't read EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases?

NOT what someone else has written about them. I've read the original decisions. That's how I arrived at my opinion.

Before I read those cases (and more), I had no opinion, because I didn't know yet.

You assert that "each one of those opinions says two parents that are citizens." I've just quoted from Wong Kim Ark. Please tell me where in the majority opinion - agreed to by all but two Justices, a clear decision - of Wong Kim Ark it says that BOTH jus soli AND jus sanguinis are REQUIRED to confer natural born status.

You CAN'T, because it DOESN'T.

And please explain why ALL of the quotations I've quoted FROM THAT CASE that say the exact opposite -- that the precedent is that jus soli alone is all is needed to confer natural born status, and that there is NO reason why this shouldn't also apply in the United States -- should be COMPLETELY IGNORED.

[Jeff Winston]

"Your whinning about what British law says quoting from the actual ruling of the United States Supreme Court is dishonest and irrelevant to this issue."

There, fixed it.

[Jeff Winston]

By the way, you really should invest the hours that I did reading and analyzing and UNDERSTANDING these actual CASES THEMSELVES, rather than relying on what someone on the internet SAYS they say.

Because I looked up your source of your doctrine, and he completely mangles the cases, as I've demonstrated by quoting from the actual majority decision above.

[editor-surveyor]

You’ve demonstrated nothing but your desire to nullify the Natural Born requirement of the constitution.

It is you that mangles the facts, and all that was needed was for you to look it up in the publications of the day (which of course you reject out of hand)

None of your twisting will change the constitution’s requirement for citizen parents.

[editor-surveyor]

In your deranged mind, I'm sure.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “And please explain why ALL of the quotations I’ve quoted FROM THAT CASE that say the exact opposite — that the precedent is that jus soli alone is all is needed to confer natural born status...” <<

.
Because you have not quoted anything, you have patched words together from different paragraphs like every other liar here that posts this garbage.

[Jeff Winston]

Because you have not quoted anything, you have patched words together from different paragraphs like every other liar here that posts this garbage.

I can't believe it.

You make a bald assertion that the Constitution means a particular thing. You make a bald assertion that 4 Supreme Court cases have ruled a particular thing.

You offer absolutely no proof of the claim.

When I point out that not only has the Supreme Court never definitively ruled according to your belief, but that there's some very good reason to suspect, based on the very cases you claim prove your point, that they would rule otherwise, and back it up with not one but MANY quotes from the majority Supreme Court ruling, you claim that I'm "deranged" and haven't quoted anything.

You're perfectly free to argue that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Wong Kim Ark. You're free to argue that, somehow, Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to Presidential eligibility, although I personally think we can't avoid the application.

It's easy to believe that two citizen parents are required for natural born citizen status if all you read is some guy's blog.

the supreme court cases are long, with sometimes subtle and complicated reasoning, and require both time and effort to really understand.

but when you understand wong kim ark, the implications seem pretty clear. honestly, they're clear enough that i could reasonably claim it's pretty well decided - and not the way you want it to be.

but that's not even what i claim. i simply claim that the matter has never been definitively ruled on.

once you understand the court cases themselves, your position can't be defended.

which appears to be clear even to you, of course, since you make no attempt to defend it, except to accuse me, with absolutely zero evidence, and in direct contradiction to the actual words of the u s supreme court, of being a "liar."

[editor-surveyor]

You are utterly twisted!

We all know that the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an elligibility case, and I have not said that it did, but it has included a definition of “Natural Born” as it would apply in such a case, in four cases that I noted, and in each case it was so stated by the author of the majority opinon.

Get it straight or STFU.

[Jeff Winston]

We all know that the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an elligibility case, and I have not said that it did, but it has included a definition of “Natural Born” as it would apply in such a case, in four cases that I noted, and in each case it was so stated by the author of the majority opinon.

Ah. We do seem to have a point of agreement. That's good. The point of agreement is this: "the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an [Presidential] elligibility case."

As for what you actually said, let's refer back to... well, what you actually said:

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.

I challenged you to produce the statements, from those four Supreme court opinions, that "it means two parents MUST be citizens [for a child to be a natural born citizen.]"

You've produced no such definitive statements from those four cases, and I can't blame you for not doing so, because they don't exist.

I produced MANY quotes from Wong Kim Ark that very definitely imply that you are (or really, the blogger you got the information from is) most likely wrong about the matter. You haven't directly refuted any of these, either (which is fairly impossible anyway, as you'd be arguing against the United States Supreme Court), but have chosen instead to simply call names.

Wouldn't you say that's a fair summary?

[Jeff Winston]

The point, basically, is this: You can't support your statements, and you can't refute mine. If you can't genuinely demonstrate a definitive claim like, "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," then it might be a better idea not to insist upon it, because someone may just call upon you to prove it.

[editor-surveyor]

>> I challenged you to produce the statements, from those four Supreme court opinions, that “it means two parents MUST be citizens [for a child to be a natural born citizen.]” <<

.
I have posted them more times than you have posted on FR.

.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Henry Brockholst Livingston wrote:
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. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it

.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html

Joseph Story wrote:
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”

.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#162

The Chief Justice wrote:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”

.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649

Justice Gray wrote, citing 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.”

---

All of these four cases accept the same definition for “Natural Born” citizenship, thus making it unanamous in every case that cites “natural born.”

As I stated previously, there is no legitimate contention on the definition.