Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.
One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.
In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
If you were smart, you would have understood I was making fun of the Hooser Hillbillies by stringing together THEIR "logic" and contradictions. Re-read it with that in mind.
Unfortunately for Vattel birthers, nobody agrees with them regarding the definition of nbc. There is not a single Congressman, Senator, SCOTUS Justice or Judge in any court, State, state election official, conservative legal scholar or legal foundation that buys this birther b.s. Doesn't that give you a hint that your crazy theory is going nowhere.
This thead isn't about Vattel. This is going strictly by what the Supreme Court said in TWO landmark decisions: all children born in the country to citizen parents = NBC. That it coincides with the Law of Nations simply shows that it is what it is, and what Obama and Rubio are NOT.
In addition to the above, the rule of law for the past century in this country has been that if you born a citizen, you are a nbc.
You still haven't answered as whether you will support the Republican ticket in 2012 if Rubio is on the ticket. Will your head explode or are you going to support the Conservatives?
Gray mentioned Miller's shortcoming because Miller stated consuls (and other foreign subjects) were "outside the jurisdiction" - a favorite of the Birth Brigade. Gray rebukes him and goes on to show the law does not hold foreigners "outside the jurisdiction of" unless they are ambassadors or ministers. Please read it again
unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
when he talks about P&I, it's not in a Constitutional sense, but as from the "Law of Nations"
If he really was quoting Vattel, why did he not capitalize the title of the book? Hint: not every reference to the law of nations is a reference to a specific book, just as not every reference to "chemistry" is a reference to the high school textbook we used with that title.
In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage.
Look at that quote again, and the several others I posted previously - citizenship is fixed by place, irrespective of parentage. Natural born in common law is conferred by birth in country, having nothing to do with parentage. The US follows the English common law in this, born on the soil = natural born. As you say, "read it, understand it, learn from it."
In any case, Rogers v. Bellei quoted WKA, and specified
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.To remind you again: jus soli = born on the soil = natural born.
There's no issue to answer. See post #259.
Gray mentioned Miller's shortcoming because Miller stated consuls (and other foreign subjects) were "outside the jurisdiction" - a favorite of the Birth Brigade. Gray rebukes him and goes on to show the law does not hold foreigners "outside the jurisdiction of" unless they are ambassadors or ministers. Please read it again
Again, you are arguing MY point for me. I said that Gray took exception to Miller's conclusion that consuls would be lumped together with foreign ministers. This is the ONLY part of the ruling he took exception to.
If he really was quoting Vattel, why did he not capitalize the title of the book?
Wow, what a great point. He probably wasn't referring to chapter 7 in Law of Nations.
CHAP. VII. Of the Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of Ambassadors, and other Public Ministers.
And Gray couldn't have been referring to this quote from Vattel ... no!!
The consul is no public minister (as will appear by what we shall say of the character of ministers, in our fourth book), and cannot pretend to the privileges annexed to such character.Look at that quote again, and the several others I posted previously - citizenship is fixed by place, irrespective of parentage.
Ummm, no, Mr. Quote Butcher. It says that it's an affirmance of the common law SO FAR AS IT ASSERTS that the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of citizenship. NBC is NOT irrespective of citizenship. The 14th amendment is, but it is NOT natural-born citizenship. Gray told us at least twice that NBC is excluded from the 14th amendment. The quote from Mr. Fish is ONLY about the 14th amendment, hence it EXCLUDES natural-born citizenship.
Natural born in common law is conferred by birth in country, having nothing to do with parentage.
Natural born is NOT in common law. Gray said common law was used as an "aid" but he never said that common law defined NBC. The definition of NBC he gave is from Minor and it is a verbatim match of the law of nations definition ... NOT common law.
The US follows the English common law in this, born on the soil = natural born.
Except there is NO passage in WKA that says this.
In any case, Rogers v. Bellei quoted WKA, and specified
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.
Right. Our "law" in this area follows English concepts, but natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment ... is not defined by the Constitutution and is NOT defined by law.
To remind you again: SCOTUS said: NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
And some tax protester arguments can only be described as complete fantasies, written in a kind of pseudo-legalistic kind of gibberish. There are therefore many court opinions in which judges have admitted that they find the “arguments” of tax protesters to be incomprehensible or incoherent. One of the most frequently cited critiques is from the 5th Circuit of Appeals, and is often quoted by judges who do not intend to waste their time trying to decipher a tax protester’s rantings:
“Crain’s present appeal ... is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish.”
Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).
The author’s personal favorite is from a District Court opinion:
“[Defendant’s] argument in favor of vacating judgment is almost incomprehensible, and, to the extent it is understandable, is meritless.... “
United States v. Bell, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5209; CIV F 95-5346 OWW SMS (U.S.D.C. E.D.Ca. 7/24/2000).
The reason that tax protesters write gibberish is that they don’t understand basic legal concepts like jurisdiction, due process, or common law, and frequently misapply the meanings of even ordinary words like “income” and “includes.” Combine that kind of ignorance with self-righteous anger towards the entire legal system and delusions of literacy, and the result is usually an indecipherable tapestry of legal jargon woven together into an unintelligible mess.
Oh, this is sooo the Vattle Birthers!!! Here is a linkty thingy, and I have just been ROTFLMAO!!! at some of the things there, like right under the "gibberish" entry is "Paranoid and Other Delusions" - - -certain arguments of tax protesters transcend legal or logical fallacies, and can only be described as neurotic or psychotic delusions
Well thanks, Captain Obvious. You have to be a citizen to be NBC. There are two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized. That's it.
Except there is NO passage in WKA that says this.
On the contrary, there are several passages that say the US follows the English common law precept.
The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words "citizens of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule "was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;" and "that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States."Note "natural born" and "native born" used interchangeably.
Also note the judgment "affirmed" afterward.
natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment ... is not defined by the Constitutution and is NOT defined by law.
Excluded because you say so, or because you butcher quotes to seem to say that? And what do you think defines NBC in America? Your imagination? It is defined, by common law. Multiple cases and authorities acknowledge that the US follows English common law in this.
SCOTUS said: NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Composition fallacy. Saying that one group is a member of a category does not say that other groups are excluded. To remind you again, Rogers v. Bellei was clear - America follows jus soli.
Well, actually that's not true. There are ways to be a "born citizen" without being "natural-born" such as through statutory means ... as in born abroad to citizen parents.
On the contrary, there are several passages that say the US follows the English common law precept.
Ummm, I apologize for spoiling your moment AGAIN, but what you've cited changes terminology from one part of the quote to the other: from "natural-born" to "native-born." Second, the "native-born" citizens ONLY applies to White Persons. The terms are obviously NOT used interchangeably. It's simply not borne out (pun intended) from your citation.
Excluded because you say so, or because you butcher quotes to seem to say that?
It says what it says and it is SUPPORTED by the Minor decision that REJECTED the 14th amendment for persons who were already natural-born citizens. Women, it said, did NOT need this amendment to give them the position of being citizens. Again, I refer you to post #259 where your "quote butcher" accusation is completely debunked.
Saying that one group is a member of a category does not say that other groups are excluded.
What part of "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" do you NOT understand?? The definition of NBC as a whole was self-limiting.
To remind you again, Rogers v. Bellei was clear - America follows jus soli.
... in certain Constitutional circumstances. Rogers v. Bellei also notes "citizenship at birth" for persons born abroad. This is NOT jus soli citizenship. Rogers v. Bellei also notes a term it calls "14th amendment citizenship." The only mentions of natural-born citizenship in this case are the naturalization act of 1790 and from a "passing refernce" to Art II, Sec. I. The petitioner was NOT born in the U.S. but he was a citizen at birth according to the court, which destroys the "jus soli only" theory.
Sorry, but the only gibberish is from you, squeezy, when you resort to completely off-topic posts since you obviously can't refute anything I've posted. If you want to moan and groan about tax protesters, at least take it to a thread where it's topical. Deflective logic has no place here.
Thank you!!! I am writing Internet Articles on this stuff now, and what is funny, is that it is pretty simple to understand once you read the long case about 2 or 3 times, and I am not even a lawyer. . And the short Indiana case is even easier. The Minor case is easy, too and pretty short. I had to google a couple of things like “common law” and I had to ask my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, about what happens if there is “common law” and then something like a amendment comes along, which do you go by then, but she explained it and that was easy to understand, too. Plus, I do some typing and other help for her and I had 6 hours of Business Law in college, sooo I am getting really comfortable with reading this kind of stuff, and it is not much different from being in Debate. And Drama.
Then, the rest of it is just like My Cousin Vinny, and you just have to watch for where the Vattle Birthers try to fool you.
No, you are WRONG. You have NOT proven anything except that no matter what somebody shows you where you are wrong, you just keep saying it, like that is going to change things.
For example, I have busted you out 3 or 4 times already about the Minor judges admitting they did not decide anything about children of aliens, and you keep pretending the issue is decided. Well, you can post 9,000,000 pages of YOUR theory about this stuff, but it is not going to change “we are not dealing with this issue today” INTO “we messed with this issue and decided about it.” Period. And there is NO NEED for some big stupid long post from you trying to pretend stuff. It is just one paragraph and anybody can just read it for themselves.
Plus, I have busted you out three or four times about taking a sentence from page 655 and combining it with a sentence from page 702, when the things they are talking about are both different and more than a 100 years apart, and then trying to make it look something that was put into the Constitution in 1868, isn’t really there, because it wasn’t there in 1789. Well, duh!!!
Sooo, NO, you haven’t proven anything except you know how to ignore stuff that proves you are wrong, and once again, you can post 9,000,000 pages of GIBBERISH to try to talk your way around it, but it still won’t work.
What you need to do is quit trying to peddle your stupid theory and your stupid interpretation long enough to just read the cases with an open mind. That way if you are being HONEST about not getting it, you can learn something. BUT, if you are being dishonest and just trying to convince everybody here about this phony baloney nonsense, no matter what, then there is no amount of logic and showing you things, that is ever going to work. And if that is the case, you should also be VERY ashamed of yourself!!!
So There!!!
What part of "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" do YOU not understand?? If you weren't born to citizen parents, you weren't natural-born citizens and ANY citizenship would subsequently rely on naturalization ... which is why the Minor case talked about NATURALIZATION AFTER it spoke about natural-born citizenship. Read and learn.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
The underlined section covers all persons NOT born of citizen parents in the country or out of the country.
These were common synomyms, "natural born," "native born" and Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862 used "home born" as a synonym for "natural born." For instance, during the debate on the 14th amendment, Senator Williams:
The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native born citizen of the United States with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States... [find it here by going to page 573, no way to directly link]
Second, the "native-born" citizens ONLY applies to White Persons. The terms are obviously NOT used interchangeably
This is really concrete thinking. The quote spoke of White Persons, not because that was the law at the time of WKA or that Justice Gray thought the concept only applies to Whites, but showing that whether born of citizens or of foreigners, those born on the soil are native born. This follows his statement
that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule "was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;English common law: born on the soil = natural born. But you've ignored other portions of WKA, such as
United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:and"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says: "Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors,and
"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives,So here we have Gray quoting several sources that say the US follows the same rules for "natural born citizen" as England does for "natural born subject."
... in certain Constitutional circumstances. Rogers v. Bellei also notes "citizenship at birth" for persons born abroad. This is NOT jus soli citizenship.
No kidding. Strawman, since I never said it was.
Rogers v. Bellei also notes a term it calls "14th amendment citizenship." The only mentions of natural-born citizenship in this case are the naturalization act of 1790 and from a "passing refernce" to Art II, Sec. I. The petitioner was NOT born in the U.S. but he was a citizen at birth according to the court, which destroys the "jus soli only" theory.
Concrete thinking again, and a strawman to boot. Since I never said that jus soli was the only way to obtain citizenship, (see the Naturalization act of 1790) you have set up a strawman. The court clearly said
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.
No, it doesn’t. You are just being really stupid and butchering the law some more. I would correct you and easily show you where you are screwing up, but WHY??? You will just go back to saying it again. YOUR mind is either UNABLE or UNWILLING to absorb anything which contradicts YOUR pre-conceived ideas.
No one argues that senators might be confused about the terminology. The dicussion isn't about what some senators might think or misundersand. We're talking about the SCOTUS specifically defined this term and separated it from other terms. They are NOT used by the court as synonyms ... except as Justice Waite defined both "natives" and "natural-born citizens" as being all persons born in the country to citizen parents.
This is really concrete thinking.
Nonsense. Resorting to pointless comments like this only exposes your inability to handle losing the argument.
The quote spoke of White Persons, not because that was the law at the time of WKA or that Justice Gray thought the concept only applies to Whites, but showing that whether born of citizens or of foreigners, those born on the soil are native born.
The quote isn't about the law a the time of WKA. Can you NOT read?? Gray CLEARLY says: "before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment" and the language in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (also not the law at the time of WKA) but as quoted clearly in Minor says: "Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person, ..."
English common law: born on the soil = natural born.
Sorry, but you're playing a very sloppy and dishonest game of connect the dots. He may have said this about natural-born subjects, but he did NOT say this about "natural-born citizens." This was ONLY defined as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
But you've ignored other portions of WKA, such as United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
Sorry, but this is an outright falsehood. I've addressed the U.S. v. Rhodes citation and/or the relevant argument in posts #295, #302, #305 and #348. The citation from U.S. v Rhodes is talking about ITS citation of Shanks v. Dupont, in which persons born on U.S. soil could be subjects of Great Britain. IOW, it affirms that English common law applied to make those born on U.S. soil natural-born SUBJECTS. In order to be U.S. citizens, those born on U.S. soil had to be in the allegiance to the U.S. by virtue of the parents ADHERING to the U.S.
Your chancellor Kent quotes are certainly at odds with how Justice Waite defined natives. Which one has higher legal precedent?? Hint: It's not Kent. Even if we assume Kent was authoritative, why would there be a need for THE citizen clause in the 14th amendment?? Second, even if we assume that subject and citizen being "in a degree, controvertible" terms, how does that exclude natural-born citizens from being a subset of "natives"?? Answer: it doesn't. Gray ultimately settles these differences by applying English common law only to 14th amendment citizenship by birth, but otherwise, he respects the unanimous decison in Minor as defining NBC as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
So here we have Gray quoting several sources that say the US follows the same rules for "natural born citizen" as England does for "natural born subject."
Well, not it doesn't say this at all. The only quote that says anything about natural-born citizens was one that recognized two different outcomes for being born on U.S. soil, based on a case where such persons could be born on U.S. soil as foreign subjects.
No kidding. Strawman, since I never said it was.
There's no strawman. These were YOUR words. "To remind you again, Rogers v. Bellei was clear - America follows jus soli." That doesn't allow for citizenship at birth for persons born abroad.
Concrete thinking again, and a strawman to boot. Since I never said that jus soli was the only way to obtain citizenship ...
No, in post #340, you said there were only two categories of citizenship: BORN and naturalized. Later you changed your categories to types and then changed "born" to "natural born," the latter of which YOU have incorrectly defined only as jus soli. The Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli. Neither your "jus soli" NOR the "citizen at birth" in Bellei fit the SCOTUS definiton of NBC ... which is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
It is obvious from a review of the case law and statutes (8 USC 1401) from the last century that Wong Kim Ark has been, and still is the leading authority regarding NBC. The dicta in Minor has not, and never will be used a precedent for nbc. Ankeney is a well written opinion that incorporates and cites the law on the nbc issues in a clear manner that is easy to understand. The opinion just blows the Vattel birthers and their crazy theory out of the water. It is representative of what an opinion out of any appellate court will write today on the nbc issue.
It is almost comical to watch Edge919 dance around the language in Ankeney. These birthers must realize that nobody outside of birther fantasyland agrees with their bogus theory.
The Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli.
Strawman. Try reading it again from Rogers v. 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.The case involved one of those affected by statute. You can scream all you want about Rogers v Bellei being wrongly decided, but that's what they said.
From English common law: jus soli = born on the soil = natural born. Go read up on Coke's case, and as you are fond of saying: "Read it. Understand it. Learn from it." Here's a helpful link to Blackstone's Commentaries.
No one argues that senators might be confused about the terminology. The dicussion isn't about what some senators might think or misundersand. We're talking about the SCOTUS specifically defined this term and separated it from other terms. They are NOT used by the court as synonyms ... except as Justice Waite defined both "natives" and "natural-born citizens" as being all persons born in the country to citizen parents.
Yup, Waite equates native = natural born.
These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Note he has one category with two synonyms (natives or natural-born citizens) vs the other categoryof two synonyms (aliens or foreigners). He equates the two, as did Senators during the debate on the amendment. Gray used the terms interchangeably.
Also learn from the several quotes that you ignore or try to explain away that say the US "natural born" citizen is analogous to English "natural born subject."
Neither your "jus soli" NOR the "citizen at birth" in Bellei fit the SCOTUS definiton of NBC ... which is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
In Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS did not define natural born definitively, it said there was DOUBT. It also said
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts(do you understand what doubt means?) And of course, Minor v. Happersett was also "not about" natural born, so by your standards you can't rely on it - it was about the vote for women. Justice Gray cited Minor, along with several other quotes and sources that said we follow the English common law in this. WKA resolved that doubt. Rogers V. Bellei cemented it. Ankeny followed the same precedent.
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.Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.and
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
I might have asked you this before, but if you answered, I forget what you said. Here you write, “[’natural born’ and ‘native born’] are NOT used by the court as synonyms ... except as Justice Waite defined both ‘natives’ and ‘natural-born citizens’ as being all persons born in the country to citizen parents.” Is it your contention that “natives” and “native born” mean two different things—are different classes of citizens?
I also wonder: hypothetically speaking, what would it take to convince you you’re wrong here? Several people with some knowledge of and training in the law have told you you’re wrong on that basis; at least one person who’s something of an English expert (me) has told you you’re wrong on that basis; a state appeals court has told you you’re wrong (you just dismiss them as “hillbillies”); and the subject of this whole thing, Barack Obama, was sworn in as president without objection from the Chief Justice or any congressman, implying that you’re wrong. Given that the judges in Slaughterhouse, Minor, and WKA aren’t around to tell you themselves that you’re wrong, what exactly would it take?
Oh no! That is where YOU are wrong. Somebody DOES (or DID) agree with them and I have found out the ORIGINAL place where the Vattle Birthers are getting all their stupid stuff from, and I am going to tell on them to EVERYBODY!!!
Sooo, sit down first, because you will NEVER believe where these stupid arguments are coming from:
The LOSING side in a 1844 case called Lynch versus Clarke!!! YES, the Vattle Birthers are digging up the losing side arguments from a case in 1844, 167 years ago. Then, they are dressing them up and giving them to people here like it is a new thought or something. That is where all the Naturalization Act of 1790 stuff was first argued, and the Shanks/Dupont thing, and the Snug Harbor thing.
All of those arguments were used then and lost. I am going to do a lot of Internet Article on this. If you want some information, I will cut and paste from that decision here for you.
But this is really pretty low down and nasty of the Vattle Birthers to do this, to try to keep Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal from running because of 167 year old losing stuff. And not telling the conservatives here about this trick they are pulling. And how could they not know they were the LOSING arguments, since that is where they got them from. They should be totally ashamed of themselves!!!
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.