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 ...
Now aside from deliberately omitting portions of quotes to reverse their meaning, you are conflating one paragraph of the case with the entire decision. You seem to be under the impression Minor vs. Happersett decided that their were different classes of citizens in terms of "natural born" and "not naturalized, not natural born." That, in case your reading comprehension has not returned, is not what the case is about. Here is what the case was about: Beginning
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.End paragraph
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment.It was a case about suffrage, not about who was natural born.
And that's it for now - work calls.
So it was the founder’s intent that naturalized immigrants have no Constitutional protection as they are not the progeny of citizens?
Jefferson the Virginian page 385..
“They will bring with them the principles of governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another.....In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation.
They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent distracted mass....
If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements…So he appears to be saying the US should not take extraordinary measures to encourage immigrants. He certainly was not saying that natural born citizenship was restricted to the descendents of the original citizens at the time of the Constitution.
Jefferson desired a homogeneous government.
Now professor, how does one begin and sustain a homogeneous government?
The citizens should be?
And where in the Constitution does it say what our citizens should be?
Where does it say in the Constitution the President can be a citizen?
A silly question. Article II
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Now, where did it say that "“Posterity” and “natural born” are pretty much means the same thing"?
Where does it say in the Constitution Rubio is a natural born Citizen. Where does it say Obama is a natural born Citizen.
The Preamble..we give to ourselves and our posterity...
Rubio and Obama are not a part of the posterity.
Rubio and Obama cannot recite the words of Lincoln...with a straight face..”Four score and seven years ago OUR FATHERS brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty...”
My Cuban citizen father and my Kenyan citizen..father...
Gee, where does it say in the Constitution that Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry is a natural born citizen? Hint: the Constitution doesn't name specific names. It doesn't define as clearly as we would like. The courts have held that we follow the British common law model, which is Born on the soil = natural born.
A natural born citizen is born to citizen parents. The Supreme Court never stated a natural born citizen is born to alien parents or an alien father.
Your posts are an example..Jefferson’s concerns of “unbounded licentiousness”...”bias”
Natural means descent...posterity means descent...from citizen parents.
Actually, they did. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 1830
...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.See also Schneider vs Rusk
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President.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.In case you are not aware, the English concept of jus soli is that born on the soil = natural born (with a very few exceptions: children of foreign diplomats, occupying military, etc.). So yes, the Supreme Court has given opinions on this.
One paragraph?? Are you daft?? In post #292 I specifically mentioned several paragraphs that support one another. Why are you deliberately ignoring that I've given you these paragraphs as well as the complete context??
You seem to be under the impression Minor vs. Happersett decided that their were different classes of citizens in terms of "natural born" and "not naturalized, not natural born."
Justice Waite mentions two different classes of persons when he defines citizens. One class is born in the country to citizen parents. This class are called the natives and NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. Another class of persons are those who "some authorities" consider to be citizens by virtue of birth without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Waite specifically distinguishes this class of persons from those who constitute NBCs. "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Here is what the case was about: Beginning
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
You're making my argument for me. You need to read ALL the words. I've highlighted above the part of the argument in which V. Minor contends she is a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. The bolded part is the citizen clause from said amendment. Waite and the other justices UNANIMOUSLY rejected this argument and did so in a couple of different places in the decision:
But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.
The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Fast forward to Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray recognized what the court did and said they were COMMITTED to excluding NBCs from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. He then cited the NBC definition used by Waite. And he then AFFIRMED that Virginia Minor was declared to be a citizen by BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria, which specifically counters the argument made by Minor of being a citizen under the 14th amendment. Do you understand yet?? If the court was committed to the English common law argument, there was no need to discuss NBC from the Constitution nor define nor for Gray to say that Minor was declared a citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
Wow. If there’s a way to misread something, you’ll find it.
Your citation isn't from the opinion of the court. This was a concurring opinion, but one that different on the matter of alienage. The majority opinion said:
2. If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.
The part you quoted from Justice Story was qualified as only HIS OPINION and on the basis of the parents having an intention to become PERMANENT members of the state/colony:
Upon the whole, upon the point of alienage as presented in the case, the following are my opinions under the various postures of the facts.
2. That if he was born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September 1776, he was born an American citizen; and that it makes no difference in this respect, whether or not parents had at the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of the state of New York, by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof, in the sense which I have endeavoured to explain.
But, if that's not enough for you, look what Story says only a couple of sentences AFTER the part you quoted:
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.
Notice how the citizenship of the child is now DEPENDENT on the allegiance of the parents DESPITE birth on U.S. soil. Your own source isn't particularly consistent. Sorry.
Then you quote Schneider v. Rusk, which uses different terms: native born as opposed to natural born, the latter of which the court puts in quotation marks. But that point aside, this quote says nothing about the citizenship of the parents in relation to who is natural born nor even native born.
As for the Rogers v. Bellei case, it says:
3. Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:
"[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . . ."
This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . ."
Note that this says the first formal definition of "native born" is found in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is dependent on jus soli AND jus sanguinis to the point that the parents cannot be subject to any foreign power. The decision says the 14th amendment is an expansion of that citizenship definition. It's a pretty poor argument to claim that jus soli = natural born when there's no definition that specifically says this and the other dicta shows that the status of the parents has always been part of the consideration for the citizenship status of the child ... even up to the 14th amendment, which WKA said included the criteria of permanent domicil and residence.
Wow, if there’s a way to avoid backing up your claim with any specific evidence, you’ll find that.
Wow, if there’s a way to avoid backing up your claim with any specific evidence, you’ll find that.
bushpilot1 asked me: “How do you explain at least 4 Supreme Court Justices quoting Vattel natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.”
What’s to explain? Lots of losing proposition have had four supreme court justices supporting them. What’s more, many natural-born citizens are born to citizen parents; that’s one of the ways to be born a citizen.
“Sorry, but this court’s decision is riddled with contradictions and incomptence.”
That’s called “projecting”.
Was it projecting when I pointed out they couldn't even name the right clause in the Constitution?? You're going have to do better than that. This court contradicted itself in its decision and made other errors. Further, there's NOTHING in the decision that declares Obama to be a natural born citizen. Nothing.
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.