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 ...
Blade Bryan: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
“The obvious translation of Naturels is “naturals”..
The opinion of several Supreme Court Justices disagree with your “obvious translation”. An example...
Justice Daniel directly quoted and referenced Vattel, citing chapter 19 and page 101....
” Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: “.......”
“By this same writer it is also said: “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Reality is my evidence. Barack Obama is the president, sworn in by a Chief Justice who expressed no qualms about his eligibility. An Indiana Court of Appeals wrote--in reference to Obama--that "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." (Is your claim that "there's NOTHING in the decision that declares Obama to be a natural born citizen" based on the fact that they didn't use "Obama" and "natural born citizen" in the same sentence?) Counter that, all you have is "they're wrong!"
But, for example, you write that
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.If he's distinguishing them, why did he write, "Some authorities go further..."? To anyone reading normally--i.e., for comprehension rather than for desired outcome--the use of "further" clearly means he was extending the description just given. If the second sentence only has to do with citizenship, not the particular kind of citizenship under discussion, why would he use the word "further"?
And speaking of evidence: what evidence do you have that any authorities do not "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"? Besides the standard exceptions for ambassadors etc., did any authority ever successfullly argue that someone born within the jurisdction was not a citizen at all?
This is called "circular logic." It's generally not the job of a Chief Justice to take a personal action to prevent the seating of a U.S. president. As to whether he had qualms, it's hard to say. We do know that the oath was botched.
An Indiana Court of Appeals wrote--in reference to Obama--that "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."
We've addressed this already. Clause 4 of Art. II, Sec. I, has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Further, I've shown how the so-called guidance the court claims is incorrect. In fact, this court even admits by way of footnote that WKA was never declared to be a NBC. How exactly do they get any "guidance" when the SCOTUS doesn't even take the action they claim to have divined from the ruling??
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
The Indiana court claims this fact is "immaterial" to WKA, yet the court in Minor (from which Gray quote the definition of NBC) directly related NBC to Art II language.
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] 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," ...If he's distinguishing them, why did he write, "Some authorities go further..."? To anyone reading normally--i.e., for comprehension rather than for desired outcome--the use of "further" clearly means he was extending the description just given. If the second sentence only has to do with citizenship, not the particular kind of citizenship under discussion, why would he use the word "further"?
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.
He's talking about a second class of persons being "include[d] as citizens," but he does not say they are included as natives or included as natural born citizens. In the previous paragraph, Waite mentions that citizens may be added by birth (since the original citizens were those who declared independence from Great Britain). Those persons who are added as citizens are NBCs (those born of citizen parents) and those included as citizens by "some authorities" with no regard for the parents. He clearly says these are two different classes of individuals. For the first class, NBCs, there is no doubt about their citizenship. The second class (with no regard to the parents citizenship) there are doubts. The point that you and other faithers seem to miss is that Waite and the court could have accepted Virginia Minor's argument and declared her a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. By emphasizing this definition of NBC, they effectively excluded it from the operation of the 14th amendment, which is what Gray wrote in the WKA decision.
And one more thing. Remember the silly "neither/nor" argument?? Eight of the nine justices in the Slaughterhouse Cases were part of the UNANIMOUS Minor decision that defined NBC and excluded it from the 14th amendment. Clearly they believed that the subject clause was NOT limimted to what you call "standard exceptions."
Clause 4 of Art. II, Sec. I, has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.
I think this has been explained to you before--I know I learned it in some discussion here. The original Clause 3 was superseded by the 12th Amendment. If you no longer count that one, therefore, what was Clause 5 is now Clause 4. That was clearly what the Indiana court meant--or do you really think they can't count up to 5?
How exactly do they get any "guidance" when the SCOTUS doesn't even take the action they claim to have divined from the ruling??
Because, unlike you, they can clearly see what the SCOTUS's reasoning was, even if they never said "WKA is a natural born citizen" in so many words.
For the first class, NBCs, there is no doubt about their citizenship. The second class (with no regard to the parents citizenship) there are doubts.
In all that verbiage, you still haven't addressed (1) why Waite used the word "further," if he wasn't talking about an extension of the definition of "natural born citizen"; and (2) whether anyone ever successfully expressed doubts about the citizenship status of that second class. Who are the "some authorities" Waite refers to?
The point that you and other faithers seem to miss is that Waite and the court could have accepted Virginia Minor's argument and declared her a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. By emphasizing this definition of NBC, they effectively excluded it from the operation of the 14th amendment
No, they just said that women did not need the 14th Amendment to become U.S. citizens. That NBCs existed prior to the 14th Amendment does not mean that people to whom the 14th applied could not be NBCs. That's a basic logical error on your part, in line with your (and other birthers') inability to grasp the distinction between a sufficient and necessary condition (i.e., "two citizen parents is enough to make you an NBC" vs. "two citizen parents are required to make you an NBC").
As someone once said: "Read it. Learn it. Understand it."
If this were the court's only mistake, I might cut them slack. I cited three separate sources that identify the clause as the 5th, not the 4th. The Indiana court cites an Indiana law, so I suppose they are handcuffed to the stupidity of their own state's legislators. The court made other errors. One, they said the plaintiffs didn't argue about where Obama was born in one part of the decision yet they admitted that they did in another. They downplayed the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as "quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century ..." and Vattel's Law of Nations (which has been cited frequently by the SCOTUS) as "an eighteenth century treatise." Then they claim without any logical basis that "the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens ..." Minor doesn't specify anything about BOTH parents being one or the other. It simply says people who are NOT born of citizen parents (plural) are distinguished from aliens or foreigners, which would categorically refer to those of mixed parents.
Because, unlike you, they can clearly see what the SCOTUS's reasoning was, even if they never said "WKA is a natural born citizen" in so many words.
The Indiana court misses the entire point. Gray could NOT declare WKA to be an NBC because he didn't meet its definition. The WKA decision had no problem attributing Virginia Minor's citizenship to a definition of NBC, so if it was the same, they should have no problem doing so for WKA. They did not.
In all that verbiage, you still haven't addressed (1) why Waite used the word "further," if he wasn't talking about an extension of the definition of "natural born citizen"; and (2) whether anyone ever successfully expressed doubts about the citizenship status of that second class. Who are the "some authorities" Waite refers to?
1) I did address it because the "further" is an addendum to the previous paragraph about how citizens could be added by birth or naturalization. It sets up TWO classes of citizens, but one has doubt. There's nothing in the construction that suggests anyone goes further in definining natural born citizen, which I also addressed. 2) The "some authorities" is probably a reference to individual states. You do understand that the ONLY authority that matters here is the SCOTUS itself?? There would be NO authority that trumps them.
No, they just said that women did not need the 14th Amendment to become U.S. citizens. That NBCs existed prior to the 14th Amendment does not mean that people to whom the 14th applied could not be NBCs.
Sorry, but this is exactly what Gray talked about when he said the SCOTUS was committed to the view that the children born in the country of citizens are EXCLUDED from the operation of the 14th amdendment. The very next paragraph goes right to the Minor decision specifically.
As someone once said: "Read it. Learn it. Understand it."
That was me and my advice still stands. You're hanging on to a "further" and "some authorities" and an Indiana state court decision that admits the SCOTUS did not to the same conclusion they divined from thin air. I've explained how those points have failed and have supported my points directly from these SCOTUS decisions. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
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. As to this class there have been doubts...and it's obvious that "further" refers back to the previous sentence, with is discussing NBC. The construction makes that crystal clear--it's in the same paragraph, and the "there have been doubts" is an echo of "it was never doubted." You would have us believe that "further" skips over the sentence that comes immediately before and refers all the way back to the preceding paragraph. As I said before, no one would read it that way unless they were invested in having it mean something other than it plainly does.
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,
On your next point you quote
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.Read a little further and see why birth after September 15th makes him a British subject:
As early as 15 September, 1776, his parents joined the British troops in New York and remained under the protection of the British arms during the war.Note that birth after September 15 1776 would mean he was born on British occupied territory, under the protection of the British occupiers. So your statement 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. is an error – if he was born September 15th or later, he was not born “under the ligeance of” the United States, but rather of Britain.
It's a pretty poor argument to claim that jus soli = natural born when there's no definition that specifically says this There are many. here’s one, and and another and even plain old Webster’s dictionary. The English system is also explained in WKA
Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. [the preceding sentence makes it clear that “such aliens” were “aliens in amity,” meaning not invading enemies]there’s also NGUYEN v. INS where Justice Scalia questioned the appealing lawyer
- Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? .
- They did not want that. .
- They wanted natural born Americans. .
- [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token….
- Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it? .
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.
I may have missed it, but where does it say they must be permanently domiciled? From WKA
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United StatesBy the way, are you saying Marco Rubio’s parents weren’t domiciled in the US?
You are just wasting your time arguing with the Vattle Birthers. Nothing you say to them or prove to them will ever work, because they are one of two things:
1. Liars trying to deceive people.
2. Very, very stupid.
Either way, you are just talking to people who are not really open to facts or logic. They give other Birthers a bad name, and frankly, I find them about on the level of those people who don’t believe we landed on the moon, because they are one of two thing:
1. Liars trying to deceive people.
2. Very, very stupid.
Lets make this simple...WKA was affirmed a citizen because his parents had permanent residency and domiciled at his birth.
This would make Rubio a citizen.
Obama’s father did not have permanent residency and domicile at his birth if he was born in Hawaii.
You do agree Obama senior did not have permanent residency and domicile?
The way I read WKA..Rubio is a citizen, Obama is not.
People tend to neglect the subject to jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment.
edge919 wrote: “This court contradicted itself in its decision and made other errors.
The state Supreme Court upheld the decision, unanimously. Did some court find it incorrect or are you just playing make-believe judge?
edge919: “Further, there’s NOTHING in the decision that declares Obama to be a natural born citizen. Nothing.”
Obama? This thread is about Rubio, remember? What the Court wrote is directly relevant here, because it refutes a crank legal theory that some here are saying disqualifies Rubio. Here’s how the theory did before real judges:
“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.” [Ankeny v. Daniels, Court of Appeals of Indiana, November 12, 2009]
“(14)We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen”
If I recall, it wasn't appealed to the state supreme court.
Did some court find it incorrect or are you just playing make-believe judge?
I get it. Instead of rebutting the arguments that were presented, you resort to smug personal comments.
Obama? This thread is about Rubio, remember? What the Court wrote is directly relevant here, because it refutes a crank legal theory that some here are saying disqualifies Rubio.
The only thing that court did with any legal authority was deny a citizen a right to hold the governor of Indiana accoutable for failing to vet presidential candidates. The nonsense in the decision about natural born citizenship is filled with contradictions and declares no one cited in the suit to be a natural born citizen. Therefore it has NO application nor any legal weight to any other candidate.
Nothing was overlooked except perhaps by you by ignoring the part BEFORE what you italicized about how it made no difference and was explained BECAUSE the parents had manifest an intention of becoming permanent members of the state. BTW, NY had very liberal citizenship laws and generally declared anyone born there to be a citizen, which is not necessarily true in other states. This is manifest from the Lynch v. Clarke decision.
Read a little further and see why birth after September 15th makes him a British subject:
Wrong. You don't have to read any further because the part that is quoted acknowledges that the citizenship was based on what the parents ELECTED to do and whether they ADHERED to their native allegiance. Your own "further" quote, says the parents JOINED the British troops. The child was NOT going to be a British subject simply on the basis of the territory being occupied but on the ELECTION of the parents to remain or regain British citizenship.
There are many. here’s one, and and another and even plain old Webster’s dictionary. The English system is also explained in WKA
My comment about the poor argument was in direct reference to the Rogers v. Bellei case that was cited. There's NOTHING in that decision that says jus soli = natural born. But it matters not, because your own links don't even say this. As for the English system, ponder this: If Justice Gray believed the English system prevailed, even prior to the 14th amendment, why did he make a point of saying citizenship in the Minor case was decided on BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria??
there’s also NGUYEN v. INS where Justice Scalia questioned the appealing lawyer
Yeah, Scalia is ASKING questions. He's not making any declarations of fact.
I may have missed it, but where does it say they must be permanently domiciled?
It's part of the opening question and the conclusion of the decision:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Gray elaborates on residence and domicil elsewhere in the decision and how it connects to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Here are a couple of the pertinent quotes. There are others that say basically the same thing.
It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution ...
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Sorry, but this is your distortion of what was said. And I'll explain again, the justices in the Slaughterhouse Cases that were cited (Miller and others) were the same judges who UNANIMOUSLY decided the Minor case which Gray said excluded NBCs from the operation of the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. The court was divided in the Slaughterhouse case, but it was NOT divided on the Minor case which rejected the 14th amendment citizenship claimed by the plaintiff. The court was committed to this view, while it was not so committed to the so-called "standard excpetions" cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases.
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...You omitted the "neither, nor" and completely changed the meaning. First I thought you were guilty merely of sloppy research, and took the quote from some other site or poster without knowing the context. Then I thought you were guilty of deliberate deception. Now that you so vigorously refuse to see the original meaning, I have to suspect you simply don't understand what you are reading.
were the same judges who UNANIMOUSLY decided the Minor case which Gray said excluded NBCs from the operation of the citizen clause of the 14th amendment.
Reading comprehension problems again. Nowhere did the judgement say that NBCs were "excluded" from the operation of the citizen clause. What they said was
They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position.and
in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.So it says Virgina Minor would have been considered a citizen with or without the 14th amendment. It doesn't say that NBCs are excluded.
This is known as a composition fallacy examples of which are :
and
- Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
By your standard of demanding the exact words "jus soli," Gray does not say that the Minor case was decided on "jus soli and jus sanguinus" criteria. Gray describes the decision
the decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.but does not say these are necessary criteria to NBC.
More rebuttal next post, and then to work for the day.
It's part of the opening question and the conclusion of the decision: The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,
Composition fallacy again. He is explaining the facts of the case, "the question presented." He does not say these are required for anyone to be a citizen by birth. You even quote the part where he says "while domiciled here" meaning it does not have to be permanent. And again, Senator Rubio's parents were permanently domiciled here.
It doesn't say "none" of the justices were committed to the view. Miller and "any of the justices" ALL took part in the UNANIMOUS Minor decision that excluded children born in the United States of citizens from the the operation of the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
Reading comprehension problems again. Nowhere did the judgement say that NBCs were "excluded" from the operation of the citizen clause.
I just showed that they were since the UNANIMOUS Minor decision that Miller and "any of the justices" took part in rejected Virginia Minor's claim of 14th amendment citizen because she fit the NBC definition of "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." This matches the substance of the phrase about the court being committed to the view: "all children born in the United States of citizens ..."
So it says Virgina Minor would have been considered a citizen with or without the 14th amendment. It doesn't say that NBCs are excluded.
No, GRAY said the court "excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment." The UNANIMOUS judgment he cited was the Minor decision. The Minor decision does NOT says Minor would have been considered a citizen with or without the 14th amendment. It specifically said the amendment (under which she claimed her citizenship) did NOT confer citizenship on her.
The composition fallacy belongs to you. So far you've claimed:
Here's what the decisions ACTUALLY said:
Further, these citations are reinforced by the Context of these decisions. Gray said Minor's citizenship was due to being born in the United States to citizen parents.
Sorry, but Gray's description of Virginia Minor goes beyond Justice Waite's decision. Waite never said Minor was born of citizen parents. So the question that you dodged remains. Why do you think Gray would make a point to mention citizen parents as part of the reason this woman was a citizen of the United States if it wasn't relevant to her citizenship?? Remember that we already have a previous paragraph saying children born to citizen parents were excluded from the citizen clause and an NBC definition that consists of children born in the country to citizen parents. Do you think Gray randomly inserted this point when it was never specifically mentioned in the Minor decision?? Why would he do that if it wasn't relevant??
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.