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 ...
Nope they didn't have Precedent, which is made up law., created out of whole cloth, as most of the court decisions of today do.
Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant? Interstate Commerce is affected by a truck farm? You have to be crazy to accept that, and neither of the founders you mention would have stood for it. In fact at least one of them would have taken up arms to wipe out the government that allows it.
Ridiculous comment.
Ridiculous dodge. What do you think it means by “ourselves and our posterity”??? If you look at the charters of the original colonies and the Constitutions of the original states, this is the kind of language that was consistently used to declare themselves and their children to be subjects/citizens of their colony/state. Those charters also recognized that persons born of denizens (legal aliens) were also considered to be denizens. One was not automatically considered a citizen by virtue of only being born in the state to someone who was not a subject or citizen of that state.
I think you are looking for something that isn’t there to prove your point and I’m unwilling to expain that simple truth to you further.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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.
"The Chief Justice, in that case, and a majority of the court with him, held that the words "people of the United States" and "citizens" were synonymous terms; that the people of the respective States were the parties to the Constitution; that these people consisted of the free inhabitants of those States; that they had provided in their Constitution for the adoption of a uniform rule of naturalization; that they and their descendants and persons naturalized were the only persons who could be citizens of the United States ..."
YAWN............
Yawn.......
"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."School ya later.
You must be having a reading problem. Look at the full quote again:
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...Got it? Neither Justice Miller nor any of the other justices understood the Court to be committed to that view. That's what it says.
Are you still carping on your losing position. Good grief. No one is LISTENING!
What do you think common law is, if not precedent? While I may (and do!) disagree with many court decisions, I wouldn't throw out the law as some seem to want to do; the Founding Fathers didn't appear to want to throw out the law (and all precendent) either. I turn to Sir Thomas More:
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!The law is imperfect, and often imperfectly applied. But if you want to throw it all out, then we are at the whim of whoever has the levers of the power that administration.
Ahem - no one is listening to your side...
Those concerned about 0h0m0’s non-eligibility are listening to truthful arguments and research, and their numbers are growing. The futile support of 0h0m0 either outright or tacit is looking more and more feeble and pathetic, as well as hopeless.
Lol! Oh, okay. Well good luck with bringing Obummer down! Lookin’ forward to seein’ that one!!
“I’ve pinged several others on this thread, so they won’t waste their time either if your answer is that you really don’t see a difference between the two.”
Thanks, but I wasted my time on edge919’s deluded misreading of that very quote some time ago. In one part I wrote:
“How could you possibly think that you can just drop the ‘neither... nor’? When you delete a negation you get the opposite of what the claim actually asserted. Well, normally you would get the opposite; in this case you were so clueless as to the proposition being negated that what you got was hash.”
He’s not only deluded about WKA, he also has a very bizarre reading of Minor vs. Happersett. I think he must have a reading comprehension problem.
Sorry, but I’ve explained in detail why both you and sometime lurker don’t have a logical point. You need more than just personal insults such as “deluded misreading” to fall back on. Five consecutive consecutive paragraphs from the WKA decision support the point I’ve made. A “neither” and “nor” that are not even taken in full context of the quote in one paragraph does not change that.
Are you even paying attention to what you're saying??? You're making my argument for me. This still says the court is committed to that view. Just because a couple of justices didn't understand it at one point doesn't negate the unanimous commitment of the court on a specific point that wasn't originally considered. This is why the paragraph prior to this quotes Marshall saying that in some decisions, not all the facts are looked at. Nothing in the Slaughterhouse decision deals with natural born citizenship. They didn't look at it. They only listed things they thought were excluded from the subject clause of the 14th amendment. It wasn't a comprehensive list, because when the court looked at natural born citizenship in the Minor decision two years later, the court was then unanimously committed to the view that natural born citizens were excluded from the operation of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment. That Miller and the others didn't understand doesn't change that commitment that was expressed through a UNANIMOUS decision. And that decision was specifically affirmed by Gray in at least THREE different paragraphs. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
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.