Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
“I suggest you acquaint yourself with SCOTUS cases such Wong Kim Ark”
Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domiciled in the US.
WKA was NEVER affirmed a natural born citizen.
If Obama was born in Hawaii..it does not matter. His alleged father was not a permanent resident.
“law of nations [would be] strictly observed.” 14 J. Cont.Cong. 635 (1779).
“of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the law of nations.” John Jay
“the Constitution was framed in firm reliance upon the premise, frequently articulated, that ... the Law of Nations in all its aspects familiar to men of learning in the eighteenth century was accepted by the framers, expressly or implicitly, as a constituent part of the national law of the United States” Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States.
“We think it clear beyond quibble that since the founding of our nation adherence to the law of nations” Finzer v. Barry
“It is also clear that the founders, who explicitly gave Congress the power to enforce adherence to the standards of the law of nations” Finzer v. Barry
In 1781 Congress recommended to the states to pass laws to punish infractions of the law of nations. This was obtained from Ware v. Hylton, Supreme Court 1796 . Vattel’s Law of Nations is frequently quoted. This info was not obtained from a far left website.
The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution.” Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
“an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations,” Chief Justice Marshall
“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Supreme Court 2004
The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has not changed” Chief Justice Rehnquist
“It is also well settled that the law of nations is part of federal common law.” United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 8, 1992.
Decided October 21, 1992.
“All these birthers pull out these quotes without really knowing what they are posting.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/~seesac/
Account Banned.
What, the decision was falsified where I got it this time??? No way. Plus, one time I went straight to the New York book online and copied and pasted myself. You are just calling names to distract people away from the phony stuff you posted here three times in a row.
What you need to do is explain why you did this three times and you have NOT answered any of that. Why did you falsify the something to make it look like they were talking about what you wanted.
Second, you need to explain why you didn’t give the FULL Gilmore thingy. Because you can’t say that you didn’t know about it if it was in the same paragraph as the other stuff.
Third, you ned to explain why YOU left off number 214. There is no good excuse because you have the book.
Fourth, I don’t think I gave a link to a “far left website”, sooo how do you know where it is from unless it is YOU who are from there, spreading false information her to keep Rubio and Jindal from running.
Or, if you just read it there, then why come you came here and made the same mistake again??? Huh???
YOU have a lot of explaining to do why you are making up stuff to post here and fool people.
WKA was declared a natural born citizen because of his birth in the USA, not because his parents were permanent residents of the US. Even if his parents had maintained a residence in the US, but had birthed WKA in a foreign country, WKA would not have been a citizen, without going through the naturalization process. The key, most important fact was the fact he was born in the USA.
WKA’s parents were permanent residents and domiciled in the USA at the time of his birth, as was Obama’s parents at the time of his birth. WKA’s parents later returned to their native country when WKA was a child and so did Obama’s father. In fact, WKA was returning from his 2nd trip to China visiting his parents when he was detained by Customs which resulted in the Landmark SCOTUS case.
If you read WKA and it's progeny, you will discover that ALL courts in the past century have ruled that if you are born in the USA (and not a child of a foreign diplomat) you are a NBC. Just look at the case that was cited by edge777 to begin this thread. The child's father was an illegal alien and the court found the child to a nbc. Just the fact that you have a nbc child will not be grounds to prevent deportation of an illegal alein, but the child cannot be forcibly deported. The case is just one more illustration of the application of WKA and the jus soli doctrine in defining natural born citizenship.
Another case that should be of interest to you and others is the Ankeny v. Daniels case that arose out of the 2008 election. The case is right on point since the issue presented to the court by the plaintiffs was whether person could be a nbc if one of his parents was not a citizen even though he was born in the USA. The court held that such a person was a nbc and eligible to be President. What should be of interest to is that The court specifically rejected the argument of the plaintiffs that the issue was controlled by the Vattel definition and instead used the precedence, language and guidance of WKA in making their ruling. This is very representative of jurisprudence on the issue of nbc for the past 100 years, and nothing is going to change that short of a Constitutional Amendment.
You really need to stop posting misleading statements and falsehoods regarding nbc that only are an attempt to confuse the issue and hinder our chances to recapture the White House next year when there is strong likelihood that either Rubio or Jindal will be on the Republican ticket. Talk about this completely bogus theory needs to end so as to not become an issue in 2012.
So many of your quotes don’t capitalize the title of the book - wonder why? 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.
“The statements of leading commentators on the law of nations are to the same effect.”
Is the sentence showing law of nations or Law of Nations? Are stating this cannot possibly refer to Vattel?
You guys keep distorting law of nations cannot refer to Vattel.
You obviously do not have a legal background and are having difficulty with the concept of natural born citizenship. It really isn't difficult to understand. An easy way to grasp the definition of nbc is to remember that if an individual is a citizen at birth, that person is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president, and if you become a citizen after your birth you are a naturalized citizen and not eligible to be president.
You seem to be hung up on the totally misguided idea that Vattel has anything to do with nbc in 21st century jurisprudence. What I have been trying to explain to you in the past few posts, is the well established and settled citizenship law for the past century. If you are so gung-ho about Vattel, show me one citizenship case in the past 100 years that uses the Vattel definition of nbc.
The term “Constitution” came from Vattel.
“WKA was declared a natural born citizen because of his birth in the USA”
This statement is false.
At 149 US 716 in WKA, SCOTUS states that pursuant to the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, there are only two types and sources of citizenship, by birth (natural born) and naturalization. The court in the last paragraph of the majority opinion holds that WKA became at the time of his birth a citizen. That is a natural born citizen.
Every legal commentator and every judge and at the time of the decision and for the past 113 years up to and including today agree that the language of the WKA opinion made WKA a nbc. Even the dissent in WKA complained that under the majority decision that WKA was eligible to be president. And we know that only nbc’s are eligible to be POTUS. So you are once again mistaken. My statement was completely true and yours was another falsehood from you.
BTW, have you had any success finding a citizenship case in the past 100 years that uses the bogus Vattel theory to define nbc?
Which would prove nothing, were it true, but it isn't. From the online etymology dictionary
mid-14c., "law, regulation, edict," from O.Fr. constitucion (12c.) "constitution, establishment," and directly from L. constitutionem (nom. constitutio) "act of settling, settled condition, anything arranged or settled upon, regulation, order, ordinance," from constitut-, pp. stem of constituere (see constitute). Meaning "action of establishing" is from 1580s; that of "way in which a thing is constituted" is from c.1600; that of "physical health, strength and vigor of the body" is from 1550s; of the mind, "temperament, character" from 1580s. Sense of "mode of organization of a state" is from c.1600; that of "system of principles by which a community is governed" dates from 1730s; especially of a document of written laws since the U.S. and French constitutions, late 18c.The Oxford English Dictionary traces it back even further, mentioning the Constitution of Clarendon from 1164. So, no, it was used before Vattel.
That sentence does not refer to Vattel's book "The Law of Nations." (What, do you think we can't look this stuff up?) It's from FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U. S. 698 (1893). It's followed by quotes from four commentators on the law of nations as regards the right of a state to expel foreigners. One of those commentators is Vattel, but they are not commenting on Vattel or his book. That cite pretty much proves that not every reference to the law of nations is a reference to Vattel's book--thanks for providing such a clear example.
Yes, I exaggerate my claim of being undecided, for effect. I've read more than enough to convince me that the Founder's abrogated English law on citizenship, but not everyone got the message. Likewise, understanding of American law on citizenship was constantly contaminated by English trained lawyer types forever citing English "common law".
What I am discussing is what the law has been held to be by judges, as the Constitution gives the judicial branch this power. In the words of Justice Scalia
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, you're begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
The fallacy in your theory is that it causes judicial decisions to turn on Democracy rather than truth. In Wong Kim Ark, the Judges who were correct were outvoted by the more numerous incorrect judges. I personally think the decision had more to do with the desire of the majority judges to shove a rebuke against racial prejudice down the throats of the objectors more than anything else.
During that era, the Republicans enjoyed waving the bloody shirt against the Democrats, and often went out of their way to force them into submission against what they saw as their superior morality.
Not very well known, but just after the Civil war the Union Forces denied the right to vote to all southerners held to have been in rebellion. The result was that mostly only former slaves were allowed to vote, and they in turn elected former slaves as state legislators. This was seen by the Republicans in the north as a just comeuppance to the arrogance of southern whites. They relished the humiliation of the reversal of status between former masters and slaves. Had Lincoln survived, he would likely have not permitted such a thing. It was his overzealous compatriots that felt the need to humiliate their defeated foes. They only ceased suppressing the White vote after the behavior of these untrained black legislatures became so laughable it was humiliating to the northern architects of the idea. Strangely enough, you can find very little, or no mention of it in any history books nowadays. Not Politically correct, I think.
Given that this was a common mindset of the times, And indeed, a motivating factor in creating the 14th amendment in the first place, It should not surprise me to discover it coloring the decision in Wong Kim Ark.
Anyway, everything is tied to everything else, so this objection to something being "off topic" is citing an illusory boundary in my opinion.
James Madison.
Apparently not everyone got the memo. Even so, he argued Jus Sanguinus in his speech on the house floor.
These are legal issues, and there are court rulings that address these issues. And THAT is what the thread is about.
This thread is nothing more than a continuation of the previous argument as to whether Barack Obama constitutes a "natural born citizen" under Article II as the founder's understood it. You seem to believe they were morons, and that they set the bar at the amazingly low level of just being born inside our borders, and I think they didn't spell it out more clearly because they never conceived that subsequent generations could be so stupid.
Jus Soli is contrary to the interests of any Free nation. That it serves the will of a King quite well is obvious, but to a Free nation it is a bane. Jus Soli only works in the best interest of a nation that uses the principle to force it's newly claimed subjects to serve the ruling power. Giving people citizenship rights with no commiserate requirement of loyalty or responsibility is first class idiocy.
Yes, I can imagine the conversation now:
Founder 1: So we've decided on qualifications. All Representatives must have been U.S. citizens for at least seven years, and all Senators must have been U.S. citizens for at least nine years.
Founder 2: You sure it's OK to have naturalized citizens running our country?
Founder 1: Yeah, that's fine.
Founder 2: OK then. And the President?
Founder 1: Oh, he needs to be born on U.S. soil and both his mother and his father must have been U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. The only way we can ensure his loyalty is through the citizenship of his parents, you know.
Founder 2: Well that's awfully specific. We'd better be clear about that in the text.
Founder 1: No, we'll just write "natural born citizen." They'd be morons to not realize that implies an absolute requirement of parental citizenship at the time of one's birth.
Incidentally, something tells me that the U.S. Supreme Court could hand down a unanimous ruling tomorrow, written by Chief Justice John Roberts himself, that Obama is a natural born citizen, and that "natural born citizenship" does not require parental citizenship, and DiogenesLamp would still be arguing that the Supreme Court is wrong.
Apparently not everyone got the memo. Even so, he argued Jus Sanguinus in his speech on the house floor.
You wanted a Founder, I gave you the Father of the Constitution - surely the best expert on what the Constitution meant to say of all of the Founders. And no, he didn't argue Jus Sanguinus. He argued Jus Soli. :
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
"JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, you're begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
The fallacy in your theory is that it causes judicial decisions to turn on Democracy rather than truth.
No fallacy, and not my theory - this comes straight from Justice Scalia. His point (and I agree) is that you can't use court cases to change the law. You want the law or Constitution changed? Fine, get the legislature to do it. We hate judges legislating from the bench when the libs do it, are you now suggesting good conservatives like Scalia should legislate from the bench?
Anyway, everything is tied to everything else, so this objection to something being "off topic" is citing an illusory boundary in my opinion.
So it's ok for me to bring Kelo v New London into every "natural born" thread, and keep demanding you comment on it every few posts? And if you don't use the exact language I want, I can accuse you of being a property grabbing commie?
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.