Posted on 09/07/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Edited on 09/07/2011 4:35:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
PALM BEACH, Fla.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If you have something from the decision (aside from the dissent) that you feel invalidates the affirmation, quote it. I’m not going to go searching for comments on it when I can see what the decision itself says.
Try the real court case next time.
You’re obviously not a lawyer...so did you stay in a Holiday Inn last night?
Thus a Constitutional question should go unanswered? Unchallenged?
whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Note that quote I used came from the court case itself. Try reading more carefully next time before insulting me.
Note that quote I used came from the court case itself. Try reading more carefully next time before insulting me.
In other words you don’t care what the constitution says nor do you have the documentation to back up your claim.
This is how our county dies, willful law breakers flouting the constitution to suit their own personal whims.
Now you're trying to distract. Your original post #73:"Wrong, the courts sent the children of coolies back to china." is proved wrong by the Wong Kim Ark decision. You disputed it. I quoted the case and you accused me of using "the cliff note liberal spin version."
Why don't you just admit that you didn't know what you were talking about with the initial post? And that you weren't as familiar with the case as you thought, having relied on someone's comments about the case?
Bottom line: they did not "send the children of coolies home," and the WKA decision established that WKA was a citizen at birth. Later cases have been even more explicit.
Still wrong. Those are the only two supreme court cases. And the decision is as stated. They said his parents were here legally, that does not grant citizenship to illegals. And according to mark there has never been a case that did.
And that's something that some people don't want to hear, because they're so in love with Rubio/Jindal/Haley...
You're spot on. We have FReepers willing to now say that Obama's eligibility is A-OK now.
Where did I say that WKA gave citizenship to illegals? Now you're just making stuff up.
Those are the only two supreme court cases.
Wrong again. Try Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbour:
" he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.and "Rogers vs. Bellei:
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
“A non-trivial percentage of conservatives won’t vote for Rubio because of this issue so it had better be decided by SCOTUS in favor of Rubio being NBC before he he is nominated. It won’t just go away.”
Indeed the Rubio-birthers are not, as one might naively expect, lib Dembs pushing a fringe theory to try to disqualify a talented and promising Republican. No, they’re conservatives, boxed into the stupid position against Rubio because they so vehemently, albeit uselessly, asserted it against Obama.
That’s why not to go for crank theories. They’re useless against your enemies, and can make you useless to you friends.
The U.S. Senate resolved that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because he was born to two American citizens.
I don’t believe or want my now conservative beliefs to trump my Constitutional beliefs going back to my service in WWII. As such neither Obama, Rubio, and even my brother(KIA Okinawa) and I were/are eligible for POTUSA as ‘natural born citizens’. Political expediency must not be overridden by what our Constitution was set up to maintain.
Good luck finding in the Constitution where Rubio is not qualified for VP.
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.