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 ...
He is not.
Bottom line: you completely changed the meaning of the quote.
You can squirm and wiggle, but the basic quote says the opposite of what your truncated quote says.
You quoted Gray as saying the justices were committed to the view.
The complete quote says none of the justices were committed to the view.
Again, either your reading comprehension, your understanding, or your intellectual honesty are deficient.
Since it is reading into something the quote doesn’t say, the intellectually honest path would be to give the full quote (with the “neither” and “nor”) and then explain why it meant what he wants to think it means. Not to truncate the quote so as to appear to say the opposite.
If a lib mishandled a quote like that, we’d be all over them for lying about what the quote said.
A very logical point - you are truncating quotes to make them say the opposite of what they really say. I could go on to deal with your other fallacious arguments, but it's hard to want to discuss with someone who either doesn't understand what he is reading, or is dishonestly changing quotes to reverse their meaning.
Why did you leave off the next sentence? It is as follows:
“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
I have so far, not found any cases where these “doubts” have been addressed by the court. Rubio may or may not be considered a natural born citizen for the purposes of Article II, section 1.
Both sides have valid points, but there is some uncertainty as to how the supreme court would rule, and apparently the supremes are determined to avoid the issue. The states should address the issue regarding filing requirements as well as acceptable prove of natural born status.
Have you ever actually looked up the meaning of “Posterity”?
“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.”
“Deluded misreading” is not a personal insult. It’s about what you wrote, the position you advanced here. For all I know you may be quite smart about many things, other than the ones at issue here.
And edge919, we’ve been through this before so you know perfectly well that I have more than insults. Here’s what three real judges on the bench of a real court unanimously held on this issue:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels
Well, greeneyes, if you have not found the case where the Court resolved those doubts, that's on you. Legal scholars found it. The editors of the most cited dictionary of American Law found it. Courts have been citing it many times for many years.“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
I have so far, not found any cases where these “doubts” have been addressed by the court.
Rubio may or may not be considered a natural born citizen for the purposes of Article II, section 1.Depending on whether or not the one doing the considering goes in for a certain crank theory.
I think the Supreme Court has addressed the issue. See Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbor:
...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.Or much more recently, 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.
“I can sort of see how he’s reading that sentence. You think where it says ‘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...’ means that ‘it was their understanding that the court was not committed to that view.’ I think edge919 takes it to mean, ‘the court was committed to that view, but all those justices failed to understand that fact.’ I think you have to really really want it to mean that to interpret it that way, but you can sort of see it if you squint.”
You’re still missing his mis-identification of the group at issue. The group is, “all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States”. Edge919 seems to have have mis-parsed it as two groups: “all children born in the United States of citizens”, along with, “subjects of foreign States”.
He’s piled error upon error and the result is just hash.
The over-parsing is a familiar error, though. If I remember correctly, he's among those who argue that in the passage
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.the word "citizens" in the last sentence refers to a different group than "citizens also" does in the first sentence. It strikes me as the same kind of error: slicing apart ideas that clearly belong together.
Citizenship status yes. The term natural born citizen under Article II section 2 - Not addressed.
On the contrary, both of the quotes reference British common law, upon which much of American common law is based. British common law specifies that
Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.When Rogers vs. Bellei references Jus Soli, that is what they are talking about - the principle that "born on the soil" makes a natural born citizen with a few very well recognized exceptions: children of foreign diplomats and ministers, children of occupying military, etc.
“Posterity” and “natural born” pretty much means the same thing.
Posterity are the descendants of the original citizens created after the ratification.
The word natural in natural born citizen does not mean at all what you guys think it means. It is a lot more complicated.
Natural is a Kind. Natural born citizen is a Kind. Natural and Kind are the same.
When the Framers used natural born Citizen they placed this type of citizen into a Kind.
This Kind (natural born citizens) are the citizens created after the ratification and their descendants (posterity).
You guys should do your homework before Dr. Conspiracy, fogbow,and nativeborncitizenexplored sends you on a fools errand.
Numerous Supremes Court Justices have quoted and referenced Vattel regarding chapter 19.
The Founders, Constitutional law professors, scholars, Senators, Congressmen, your gal Hillary Clinton said Vattel is the source that guided the drafting of the Constitution.
Vattel is the source who gave the Founders the justification to have their revolution.
Natural born citizens are born in the US to citizen parents.
A country cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born to citizens. A country should desire this for its own preservation.
Jefferson wrote...”they will come and destroy everything we have built.” He meant foreigners.
Ahhh...
Not in any dictionary I ever saw. Which one are you finding this in?
Natural is a Kind. Natural born citizen is a Kind. Natural and Kind are the same. When the Framers used natural born Citizen they placed this type of citizen into a Kind. This Kind (natural born citizens) are the citizens created after the ratification and their descendants (posterity).
Please show where this explanation of "kind" is in the Constitution. By your logic, the only natural born citizens are those who can trace their ancestry back to those in America at the time of Constitution. I don't think that's at all what the Framers had in mind.
Numerous Supremes Court Justices have quoted and referenced Vattel regarding chapter 19.
And numerous Supreme Court Justices have cite Common Law, including one case (Rogers vs. Bellei) that unequivocally states that America follows the British "Jus Soli" model. (Born on the soil = natural born)
Vattel is the source who gave the Founders the justification to have their revolution.
You really ought to check your history references. The revolution occurred not because the colonists didn't like British common law, but because common law was not being applied to the colonists.
Jefferson wrote...”they will come and destroy everything we have built.” He meant foreigners.
Not that I doubt your word, but when I google this quote I don't find it. Please cite your source.
I think that's from Lord of the Rings.
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.