Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: org.whodat
Read the decision.
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.[emphasis added]

96 posted on 09/07/2011 6:48:54 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker
That is not the sum total of the decision. Look up mark levins statements about it.
101 posted on 09/07/2011 7:10:29 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: sometime lurker
The link is the real case not the cliff note liberal spin version, you will see the court said his parents were legal residents at the time of kims birth.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649
103 posted on 09/07/2011 7:25:02 PM PDT by org.whodat (What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: sometime lurker
Read the decision.
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.[emphasis added]

Ummm, you missed an important factor in the decision in that permanent domicil and residence was necessary in order to meet the subject clause of the 14th amendment (see bolded part above). Gray spent quite a bit of the WKA decision on domicil and residence. Gray also distinguished 14th amendment citizenship as being different from natural born citizenship. The former, he said, is defined by the Constitution, while the latter is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. That latter definition was supplied in the Minor v. Happerset decision and affirmed in WKA, that a child born in the country to citizen parents was a citizen. The Minor decision rejected Virginia Minor's claim of 14th amendment citizenship because she was already a natural born citizen. Gray further affirms this by explaining that the Supreme Court was committed to the idea that the 14th amendment does not apply to those who are born in the country to citizens.

123 posted on 09/07/2011 10:18:54 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: sometime lurker

“becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

He can be a member of Congress. A president needs to be a natural born citizen. Rubio does not qualify.


131 posted on 09/07/2011 11:41:29 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson