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 ...
You call somebody a douchebag and you’re going to get a response.
pages 15-16
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AAT1053.0001.001/27?g=moagrp;rgn=full+text;view=image;xc=1;q1=vattel
“You call somebody a douchebag and you’re going to get a response.”
When did I do that? A search of the page shows that you’re the only person to use the term.
Memory is a funny thing, but I have seen evidence that any such argument, one that supposedly was learned in school, was somehow mysteriously rare as hen’s teeth in threads discussing eligibility until AFTER the 2008 election.
Why do you suppose that is?
I like Rubio.
I’m not quite sure who you’re speaking of when referencing those who say, “Constitution and law be damned”. If you’re commiserating with me about those who want to read their own interpretation into what the Constitution doesn’t say; and where the Courts have said the opposite, thank you. If you’re accusing me of saying “Constitution and law be damned”, first show that the Constitution means what you imply it does, and show where the Courts have supported that.
n. i.Star Wars counterpart for "douchebag"
That doesn’t seem to be a very popular interpretation of the phrase.
Neither does it say a natural born citizen is a person born in this country whose parents were natural born or naturalized before said person’s birth. Doesn’t say it. Never has. Never will.
I agree, and I think the Court would rule that way in the instance that the parents were citizens of a country hostile to the US, such as Iran or Cuba. But, even in those situations, I would think the courts would rule that if the parents fled those countries, they in essence gave up their other citizenship and have broken their loyalty to their home country. That is just how I think the court would rule. I wouldnt see them saying that a father with dual citizenship in Britain would count as mixed loyalties, but we wont get to see that anyway.
Perfectly clear, since I posted the quote from WKA in post #140.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.Interpreting it in light of the common law means, as you have been told in the past, that children born on American soil are natural born citizens, with the few narrow exceptions I have posted before.
Gray affirmed, when he said the Supreme Court was: .. committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
Way to take quotes out of context so they say the opposite of what the speaker really said! But you might want to look at in context in WKA
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench...But nice try make Justice Gray say the opposite of what he really said! A true test of either your research skills, or your intellectual honesty - you best know which.
I fear you give them too much latitude. Earlier, the INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOR, decision in 1830 made the Supreme Court's opinion clear:
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.
Drop dead.
Not my fault you got your information from an unreliable source.
Next time get authenticated information: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Obama himself stakes his status as “native born” (claimed to be equivalent to “natural born”)on his being born in Hawaii.
The fact that he had to forge both the Certification of Live Birth and the Certificate of Live Birth indicates that he was NOT born in Hawaii.
Since we already know that his mother was legally incapable of transmitting citizenship to him, add all these facts together and you get: Obama is not ANY kind of U.S. citizen whatsoever. Foreign father + mother incapable of transmitting citizenship + not born on U.S. soil = not a U.S. citizen.
I was talking directly to you, the one that would rather argue about clouded decisions from judges that had an agenda than use the common sense that God gave a Goose.
“Gordon is not saying that native-born means jus soli only.”
Hahahaha.... Oh, you crack me up.
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.