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]
edge919 explained to you step by step the Supreme Court cases regarding citizenship and natural born Citizenship.
The source for the Jefferson quote is located in this forum.
“The source for the Jefferson quote is located in this forum.”
But unfortunately nowhere else in the universe...
“The word natural in natural born citizen does not mean at all what you guys think it means. It is a lot more complicated.”
All the more reason not to pretend an expertise you do not command. Not being a constitutional scholar myself, I looked it up “natural born citizen” in /Black’s Law Dictionary/, the legal dictionary that the U.S. Supreme Court cites far more than any other (as West Publishing wants everyone to know). I’ve checked several editions, and they all imply that Rubio would qualify; the sixth edition is most explicit on the meaning:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.
The definition plus the fact that Marco Rubio was born in Miami Florida shows that Rubio is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Your own theory, bushpilot1, of what “natural” has to mean, and its implications as to “kind”, strikes me as silly, but either way it’s just your own theory. No one outside an irrelevant fringe buys it. Marco Rubio’s eligibility follows from the real law, regardless of what is going on in your head.
How do you explain at least 4 Supreme Court Justices quoting Vattel natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.
Sorry, but the paragraphs that follow support the quote. You’re confusing yourself over an independent clause.
Sorry, but this court's decision is riddled with contradictions and incomptence. To start, the Clause 4 of Aricle II has nothing to do with natural born citizens.
Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
source No. 1
Source No. 2
Source No. 3
If you think you have a point, go ahead and make it. This isn't going to end well for you.
When I google it the quote and Thomas Jefferson, the only thing that comes up is this thread with your post. If that's what you mean by "located in this forum," nice try. Please cite the original source for the quote.
edge919 explained to you step by step the Supreme Court cases regarding citizenship and natural born Citizenship.
Edge919 tried to prove his point by truncating quotes to say the opposite of what the speaker actually said, taking quotes out of context, etc. Not very persuasive at all.
Sorry, but you're truncating my argument which is based on several paragraphs that support the so-called truncated quote. Ignoring the whole argument makes your whining not very persuasive at all.
I would recommend a remedial course in English. You might focus on independent clauses versus dependent clauses.
Please read up on what an independent clause is
An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence.Do you think this is a whole sentence? "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"? Obviously not. The clause can't be removed without damaging the meaning, or you wouldn't have needed to do what you did, substitute "Justice Gray affirmed" for what the beginning actually said.
You can't gloss over the fact that you butchered the quote to make it say the opposite of what it really said.
The paragraphs that follow do not support what you think they do. But it's hard to continue discussing with someone who thinks it's fine to butcher quotes to reverse their meaning.
It doesn't mean the opposite of anything. The part about the court being committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment stands alone. That commitment is manifest (made clearly apparent) by a unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett. That decision unanimously rejected Viriginia Minor's claim of citizenship per the 14th amendment. Thus Gray AFFIRMS the court was committed to the view that the 14th amendment does not apply to NBCs. Gray cites the NBC definition used in Minor in the very next paragraph of the WKA decision. He then AFFIRMS the definition of NBC in the next paragraph by explaining that the Minor decision declared Virginia Minor to be a citizen by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis circumstances (both criteria used in the NBC definition given by Justice Waite). Minor's citizenship didn't give her a right to vote, but her citizenship was formally established through a definition of natural born citizen that could NOT be used for Wong Kim Ark. That Neither Justice Miller or the Slaughterhouse Case justices understood this about NBC is irrelevant to the court's commitment, because the court was UNANIMOUS on the Minor decision that SPECIFICALLY defined NBC. The Slaughterhouse case did not. It excluded certain classes from the subject clause of the 14th amendment, but it does NOT change the commitment expressed through a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision that defined NBC. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
Definition of POSTERITY
1: the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2: all future generations
Or!
http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=posterity*1+0&dict=A
posterity
the people who will exist in the future
------------------
That's what I mean.
The word doesn't exclusively connotate the direct descendants of the speaker.
To say that the context you cite was a comment on birthright citizenship strains the bounds of credulity to a rather large degree...
Hmmm... That ended pretty well.
"Most quotes on the Internet are misattributed."--Abraham Lincoln
No, not by itself, but in the Constitution, it says "OURselves and OUR posterity." The context is not generic, particularly since the first part of the preamble is WE the people. They're talking about those who are citizens and THEIR children or descendants. Others can become citizens by naturalization, which is why the Constitution gives the power of naturalization to Congress. Considering this was a fledgling country breaking away from another country, it's ridiculous to presume they were simply talking about "people who will exist in the future" with no ties of loyalty to the country.
So if they were born in the United States, thus giving them ties and loyalty to the country?
Your view of Minor vs. Happersett is flawed. The Court does not define NBC, but rather one aspect of it as applicable to Virginia Minor, and says
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.Got it? The court did not resolve these doubts since they were irrelevant to the case. So no, the case did not define NBC.
If they were born in the United States to citizen parents ... the Constitution doesn't say "ourselves and those who happen to be born here of visting scholars who marry and knock up local girls ..."
And they were. What part of UNANIMOUS DECISION do you NOT understand?? Do you think it was NOT a unanimous decision in Minor??
Good one!
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.