Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
A quick warning: the birthers among us do not accept that simple fact. They will argue that there is a category of born citizen that is not "natural born" citizen. You will cite decisions that plainly support your point, and they will slice the sentences and paragraphs into little pieces and reassemble them to mean something you won't recognize. At some point you will walk away shaking your head in disbelief, at which point they will declare that they have proven you wrong.
Just trying to save you some time. Engage for fun if you want, but don't expect to get anywhere.
YOU told us YOU cannot understand what YOU read.
YOU read a document but did not understand what it meant.
How can you come here..read our posts and understand what we are saying.
How can you read and understand Supreme Court decisions.
By YOUR own words YOU cannot.
Garbage. I admitted an error (you have several but won’t admit them) so you are making the same composition fallacy, and assuming that one human error means all statements are erroneous. In a previous discussion Diogenes Lamp made an error, I pointed it out and he correctly acknowledged it. SO are you saying you’ve never made an error? Or just that you never acknowledge your errors?
The court cases are clear - the child is a natural born citizen, but that doesn’t affect the status of the deported parent. The child is free to stay in the US with a different guardian, or to return later.
And there is one of our differences. I dislike intellectual dishonesty. Even if a different part of the case supported your position (it doesn't) I would be disgusted. What I can't respect is omitting part of the quote to change the meaning, then trying to weasel out of it by claiming that it doesn't matter because other parts of the case supported what you (falsely) had the quote say.
You do not get off that easy Professor.
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
NEAL KUMAR KATYAL
Acting Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
MARK B. STERN
ERIC FLEISIG-GREENE
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Respectfully submitted.
NEAL KUMAR KATYAL
Acting Solicitor General
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
MARK B. STERN
ERIC FLEISIG-GREENE
Did the government brief say that the child was not deported? Yes or no?
Professor..you come to this site proclaiming we are wrong and you are correct.
Professor sometime lurker screamed over the roof tops of the world this document was a Supreme Court decision.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
MONICA CASTRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND
OF R. M. G., PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
Professor we doubt you can recognize the difference between Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
Did the government brief say that the child was not deported? Yes or no?
Then stop practicing it. You've been shown nine ways to Sunday that your belief on the "neither...nor" phrase is wrong. I've just given you yet another detailed schooling on it. If you disagree, then you need to give a specific reason why based on actual logic and not baseless attempts to smear.
Sorry. I didn't realize you were profoundly challenged. Have you NOT read the actual FIRST paragraph?? Here:
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
Minor's citizenship is PART of the question. Citizenship comes BEFORE the right of suffrage wihin the "question." The SECOND paragraph presents Minor's argument:
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.
The citizenship question is covered in the next 12 paragraphs. I've shown you specifically how citizenship was the No. 2 bullet point in the syllabus. Citizenship is also No. 1 in the syllabus as well.
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
Further, the terms citizen and citizenship are used in the next rest of the bullet points in the syllabus. The opinion of the court wraps things up nicely in the third-to-last paragraph:
Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage.
For the court to make this appraisal, it had to determine when the Constitution conferred citizenship, which it did by defining natural-born citizens: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Anyone else who was a citizen was made so through naturalization.
You complain that Scotus ignores Minor in the Rogers citizenship case, when if understood legal precedent and the definition of dicta it would be obvious to you why Minor was not cited.
The Minor definition IS legal precedent and it has been cited as such in the Wong Kim Ark decision. The court in that case determined that the Minor decision excluded NBCs from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. It acknowledged the definition of natural-born citizen comes from OUTSIDE of the Constitution. So-called "native-born citizenship" is an invention OF the Constitution, so the court, using the precedent of Minor made a distinction between two classes of birth citizenship. Further, the court acknowledged specifically that the Minor decision recognized citizenship on the basis of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. If that was NOT controlling precedent, there was NO need to say anything about citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark was NOT born to citizen parents. The SCOTUS could NOT declare him to be a natural-born citizen, and IN FACT, the court did not do so. In its dicta, the last time that the term "natural-born citizen" is used is when the definition is cited from Minor.
You realize that any attorney who cites Minor regarding a citizenship issue in a case automatically loses the case and the judge goes back to his chambers and breaks out ROTFLOL.
Nonsense. Let's see your proof of this. Your own example shows otherwise.
Rogers is not the only citizenship case that ignores Minor, every other case in the last century does the same.
Are you really this stupid?? Rogers didn't ignore Minor. It was cited. It did ignore part of the Minor decision. The question is whether that was on purpose or out of ignorance. That part that was ignored just happens to be the same part that was quoted verbatim in Wong Kim Ark and that the court was compelled to abide.
It is obvious from your post that you cannot find a single natural born citizen case in the last century that cites Minor.
Sorry, but you keep making yourself look more and more stupid. Minor was cited in the case you mentioned. Plus the point of this thread is that Obots and apologists cited a couple of cases that they thought supported their misunderstanding of what NBC means. I've pointed out that these cases do NOT support their misinterpretation beyond the acceptance of a face value claim. The actions of the court belie the claim of natural-born citizenship.
BTW, a syllabus to a SCOTUS case is NOT part of the court's opinion and is never cited as authority.
This would mean something had I not cited several paragraphs directly from the decision. I noticed you've failed to address any one of those citation, and have resorted to fallacies and ad hominem nonsense. You make this too easy for me. Thanks for conceding the point.
If Mr. Salazar is a Mexican citizen then his children would be Mexican citizens as well despite being born in the USA.
Why?
Because the Mexican government asserts that a Mexican is under that government’s sovereignty no matter where they travel or live outside Mexico. That means that the children of Mexican citizens born overseas are NEVER under the jurisdiction of any foreign nation.
If they are not born under the jurisdiction of the United States, then they aren’t considered native born citizens of the US.
Look under CITIZENSHIP
Very simple. Removing the “neither... nor” reversed the meaning of the quote you posted.
I honestly admitted an error in which part of the Judicial system made a statement (which didn’t change the basic fact that the government said the child was not deported).
You won’t admit
1. That the children in the cases posted are not deported, they accompany their parents.
2. That omitting the first part of the quote changes the meaning.
You keep trying to weasel out of your slicing up the quote, but you can’t. No matter what you say about the rest of the case (and I’ve shown you are incorrect there, as well) you presented a truncated quote to claim a meaning opposite to what the quote actually said. It could have been sloppy reasearch - if you acknowledged it, I’d let it go. But you continue to defend it.
1. The teacher and the principal said that John cheated on the test.
2. Neither the teacher nor the principal said that John cheated on the test.
See the difference?
No it didn't. The part quoted is based on static and measurable facts:
a) [the Supreme Court was] "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" : The evidence is provided by two cases: Minor v. Happersett and Elk v. Wilkins. Minor excluded NBCs and Elk excluded Indians (who were subjects of foreign States).
b)"manifest from a unanimous decision": The Minor V. Happersett cases that excluded NBCs from the 14th amendment was decided unanimously
c) "delivered but two years later": The Minor decision was delivered two years AFTER the Slaughterhouses Cases
d) "while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench": Yes, eight of the nine justices that were split in Slaughterhouse were NOT split in Minor. The new member of the court in Minor was Justice Waite who wrote the majority opinion
e) "in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection"" : No argument here. This part is in the Minor quote
None of these things is reversed by the first phrase in the sentence, which is used only to show that the standard exclusions as mentioned in the Slaughterhouse ruling were NOT the ONLY exclusions from the 14th amendment. Miller, who wrote the Slaughterhouse decision did not understand in 1872 that he was going to add another exclusion in 1874, yet he did. The fact that he did NOT understand 1872 is manifest from the unanimous decision in Minor that he voted for in 1874. His misunderstanding from NOT being able to see into the future doesn't change the facts of the rest of the sentence. The Supreme Court was committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
The only "weaseling" and "slicing" is being done by you when you invent inane and oversimplified sentences that do not match the same structure as the sentence in Wong Kim Ark. Your own example fails because what the "teacher and principal" said or didn't say doesn't affect the factuality of whether "John cheated." Do you UNDERSTAND yet?? If you believe in intellectual honesty, then it's time for you to show it.
I think I am wasting my time pointing out to you that this is both argumentum ad vericundiam and argumentum ad populum. The Sun does not rise and set by what any of these people believe either singularly or together. Nor does the fact that the SCOTUS didn't decide to hear the case prove that it has no merit. There are 4 idiots on the supreme court, and 1 nitwit.
These are two different issues. If you float this theory publicly, people will be looking for your tinfoil hat.
Yes, the recognition by the law for unborn children is just crazy talk.
I am not a lawyer, but I know the law is often imperfect, confusing, even contradictory. But much better than no law at all. And we are discussing what the law is here, not what we wish it would be.
And yet the "law" runs cowering in terror from addressing this issue. Yeah, that helps a lot.
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.