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 ...
It's in the Minor case. Did you not read it??
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," ...
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. 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," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Do you understand this?? Take your time and read it slowly. Read it again until you understand. The persons who associated themselves to form the Constitution as members were the original citizens. He said citizens could be added by birth which is apparent from the NBC clause. Then he defined the NBC clause: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Also, explain what YOUR favorite case, Minor Happersett, said, about looking to common law, and why those judges never mentioned natural law or Vattel.:
1. It didn't say it was "looking to common law" ... the phrase is "at common law" ... "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" ... the "nomenclature" comes from law of nations. Here's the law of nations definition of NBC. I've underlined each of the parts of the NBC definition that Waite used verbatim:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As you can see, Waite used ALL of that definition. Waite didn't have to say "natural law" because his definition, in the nomenclature of the founders, matches the law of nations definition ... which comes from natural law. Here's what it says:
There certainly exists a natural law of nations, since the obligations of the law of nature are no less binding on states, on men united in political society, than on individuals. But, to acquire an exact knowledge of that law, it is not sufficient to know what the law of nature prescribes to the individuals of the human race. The application of a rule to various subjects, can no otherwise be made than in a manner agreeable to the nature of each subject. Hence, it follows, that the natural law of nations is a particular science, consisting in a just and rational application of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of nations or sovereigns.
- - -
It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent.
Noooooow, weezy, I've noticed you punted my challenge from a few posts back. Show me any actual citations of English common law from the Minor decision. The words "at common law" is not an English common law citation, particularly when it is followed IMMEDIATELY by a law of nations citizenship definition. This will be the THIRD challenge you have failed on. How many failures will it take before you admit that you're wrong??? I've backed up EVERYTHING I've posted. And I challenged you to find the things that would be necessary to support your belief, yet you have punted every time. At some point, reality should be sinking into your head.
It didn't say it was "looking to common law" ... the phrase is "at common law"
And, bad for you, a LATER CASE, backs me up!!!
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he [Waite, in case you want to pretend you don't get it!!!] proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Sooo, obviously that is where Waite got his definition, from common law, and NOT natural law or Vattel, and I HAVE A SCOTUS Case that says so!!!
Plus, since you will claim you don't know what sophisms are, here is a definition from a very good and exciting new Internet Article about a Vattle Birther who can't understand "See Spot run!!!"
A sophism is a derogatory term, and means a specious argument or verbal trick used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood, or it might use obscure words and use complicated sentence constructions in order to fool people and misrepresent the truth. And, before you ask, specious means superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
So There!!!
I've already cited this in post #512. I gave you a specific challenge based on this citation. It does NOT back up anything you believe. It claims Waite resorted to common law as an "aid" in the construction of the birth provision of the 14th amendment. It does NOT say that Waite used common law to define NBC. Read it closer. It does NOT say what you think it says. Here's what I posted early in #512. Still waiting for you to respond to this challenge:
And ... here's another challenge, ez squeezy. Justice Gray said that Waite " ... proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision." Notice he doesn't say that Waite resorted to common law as an aid in saying who shall be natural-born citizens. It was aid in the construction of this "provision" ... "provision" is referring to the 14th amendment: "the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question" ... soooooooooooooo the challenge is to go to the Minor decision and find where Waite used common law to aid in the construction of the birth provision of the 14th amendment. He didn't use common law to define NBC. That, as I have shown, is a verbatim match of the law of nations quote.
Sure looked like it when you quoted a bunch of "law of nations" quotes not capitalized, including the "writers of the law of nations." Glad you have backed off of that.
"he cited a chunk of Vattel and went on to discuss what related to the case - with citizens living in another country. Read the case and see the point of the case."
This is still a strawman.
Suggest you look up what a "strawman argument" is.
This case was only cited to show that Vattel is positively linked to uncapitalized citations of law of nations. This means that law of nations does NOT have to be capitalized to be linked with Vattel. The fact that the SCOTUS relied so much on Vattel for principles of citizenship is a nice bonus. The same definition of natural citizenship Marshall used is recast in Minor, minus a specific citation.
Are you at all aware of how books are usually cited? Book titles are generally capitalized. Note a case from 1883, and another from 1890. When specifically citing Vattel's book, the name of the book is capitalized. Breaking up your long post - see next.
I backed myself up with a SCOTUS quote!!! What have you backed yourself up with??? NOTHING. Plus, when something is INDISPUTABLE, maybe the Minor judges did not think it necessary to quote a case:
“It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. “
Because I noticed, in this case that you think is the answer to everything, the Minor judges did not quote any cases on anything. Maybe that is because it was easy. Virginia Minor was a citizen, before the 14th Amendment was passed, and she didn’t get to vote sooo people could be citizens and not have the right to vote. Sooo, they could still be citizens after the 14th, but they still didn’t get the right to vote.
But this is the case you Vattle Birthers just love, even though it is a voting rights case, not a citizenship case. If you want a case that does quote a lot of cases, maybe you should look at Wong Kim Ark!!! (And quit being a sophist!)
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
If you agree the 14th amendment follows common law, then you agree that born on the soil means natural born, as the common law says. Glad we agree on this.
WKA affirmed that NBC = born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Justice Gray quoted several sources, some conflicting. He quoted many sources that said the US follows common law, that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were analogous, etc. But you don't like those so you ignore them.
"He could not, in any case, be a British citizen."
This is false and Obama's own website said his citizenship was governed by British law at birth.
At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone. Sr. became a Kenyan citizen, and 0bama no longer had the option of British citizenship (at the grand old age of 2 years). So as an adult, there was no question of British citizenship. Good try.
by some accounts, Obama was in Kenya when he would have been old enough to preserve his Kenyan citizenship.
And what evidence do you have that this occurred? This is typical of the "natural born" or "birth certificate" crowd. "I speculate x could have happened, therefore it did happen." He would have had to formally renounce, in writing, at a US consulate or embassy. So there would be a paper trail had this actually occurred. Nice fantasy, though.
Wrong. The court refers to this "opinion" as a guiding principle to follow: In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles.
Gee, funny, I don't see them affirming that they agree with the author's opinion. I see them saying it is the duty of the courts to decide the proper application of the law.
"However, US law does not provide for "inferior citizens."
Yeah, actually it does. It separates persons into citizens and "nationals" ...Sec. 308. [8 U.S.C. 1408] Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:
Your own citation shows you are wrong. That law does is not about "grades" of citizens, it deals with those born in outlying possessions, who are called "nationals" and their children.
If he was born outside the U.S., then his mother needed to be age 19 or older to pass on her citizenship to him OR she needed to be legally unwed.
One of the few places we agree.
Jus soli does define NBC. Only when accompanied by jus sanguinis. This is how the Supreme Court defined it in at least TWO landmark cases. Your Scalia quote is not specifically about citizenship. It's hypocritical for you to complain about The Venus citation and then for you to rely on out-of-court statements made by Scalia on his very general philosophy. I believe I've found Scalia citing law of nations or Vattel in other threads. Bellei also does not undermine the Minor definition of NBC. Insisting that Wong and Bellei do so is a matter of two Wongs that don't make you right.
Trying to be clever, but you're failing. You keep claiming Minor defined NBC, but Minor specifically said it would not resolve the doubt. Scalia was clear that much US law is interpreted by going back to common law, particularly where the language echoed phrases from English common law. "Natural born" is clear in common law, and Rogers v Bellei and Ankeny are clear that we follow the common law.
It's far from trivial to misinterpret a law meant to apply to those born abroad as applying to those "born on the soil." As Scalia says, as Rogers v Bellei says, as Ankeny says, we follow the common law. Common law says "born on the soil" = "natural born."
Lest you have difficulty with the simplified logic of this act by congress. 2 citizen parents = Natural born citizen, soil unimportant. Ergo, Natural born citizen status not tied to soil. Non-Resident father, no citizenship at all!
Fallacy. Case 1 is citizenship by statute passed by Congress. Your reasoning assumes that those not covered by the statute are also subject to the same rules - false.
It isn't TRUTH or LAW being decided, it's POLITICS disguised as LAW! Why you think we should accept and respect this bastardized process I cannot fathom.
Because United States law, however flawed, is better than the law of the jungle. Some law, some decisions will be flawed - legislators and judges are human and thus flawed. Take away all law, or disobey what you don't like, and we have chaos. I am not in favor of each person as his own law - are you?
Your opinion, backed up by very little. There are many citations saying the US follows English common law, some from very early on. In another thread I cited an early author on the Constitution, William Rawle: A View of the Constitution from the 1820's (two different editions) which of course you did not like
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…. Who was Rawle? US District Attorney for Pennsylvania, appointed by George Washington. There are also various statements from court cases, which you don't want to credit because you disagree with them.
(In any case, you acknowledge that we absolutely rejected English Common law regarding the Children of Englishman always being an Englishman as they tried to apply it to Americans. Good, that's progress. :)
Not really progress since I've known that one since I learned about the War of 1812 in Junior High.
Wrong. I already brought up the quote earlier and gave you a challenge based on the content of that quote - a challenge you have still failed to address. That's not how you back yourself up ... unless you meant that you back yourself up into a corner. I can't argue against that. Plus, when something is INDISPUTABLE, maybe the Minor judges did not think it necessary to quote a case:
You're not helping yourself. All this does is admit that the quote didn't back you up at all.
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.
This is a conditional statement and the Supreme Court has never agreed with this nor have they cited this. When referencing Lynch, Gray said it elaborately argued for citizenship of a person born in the "dominion" of foreign parents and that it was one of the cases that went "farthest" in declaring specific statutes to be declaratory of common law. Gray certainly didn't cite this statement NOR did he ever suggested that the Lynch decision was a basis for natural-born citizenship.
Because I noticed, in this case that you think is the answer to everything, the Minor judges did not quote any cases on anything
Thank you. That's the point of the challenge I gave you. Gray said that Minor resorted to common law to define the citizen provision of the 14th amendment, but as you have observed, the Minor judges did NOT quote any cases and did NOT quote any common law. They did give a definition of NBC that was a verbatim match from the Law of Nations and that same definition was quoted in WKA. Do you understand that??? Gray quoted Minor on NBC; he did NOT quote Lynch on NBC. Which case is the actual legal precedent on NBC??? (This isn't a hard answer to come up with. Hint: It's not the one that starts with L.)
I am not misinterpreting the law. I am pointing out that it conforms to the opinions of the constitutional delegates. A point that I cannot seem to get you to comprehend. It does not "define" natural born citizen, it REVEALS what they thought it meant.
Fallacy. Case 1 is citizenship by statute passed by Congress. Your reasoning assumes that those not covered by the statute are also subject to the same rules - false.
I am pointing out that they would only pass laws which were consistent with their beliefs. The "naturalization act of 1790" merely reveals what those beliefs were.
Because United States law, however flawed, is better than the law of the jungle. Some law, some decisions will be flawed - legislators and judges are human and thus flawed. Take away all law, or disobey what you don't like, and we have chaos. I am not in favor of each person as his own law - are you?
I am not advocating the blatant violation of wrongly decided "laws". I am advocating the denouncement of them, and that their proponents be challenged to defend them constantly. They should be shown to be foolish and argued out of existence. Reductio ad absurdum.
The adherence to the concept of jus soli is one such example of something that is very foolish. It serves no useful purpose to any government but a monarchy where it lays a claim of servitude on those unfortunate enough to be caught by it.
You have a funny idea what constitutes very little. Near as I can tell, my side has ten times the evidence that your side does. We have a SPECIFIC definition, widely known among the founders, while you merely offer "hand waving" about an ephemeral law from a nation who's rule we threw off, and indeed fought a second war with on the very issue of applying their citizenship laws to us!
There are many citations saying the US follows English common law, some from very early on. In another thread I cited an early author on the Constitution, William Rawle: A View of the Constitution from the 1820's (two different editions) which of course you did not like
We follow Common law in cases where it was not specifically rejected. English Citizenship laws are an example of where it was. Twice.
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…
I have already ceded Rawles to you. He is one of those that simply didn't get the memo. However Supreme Court Justice Marshall and Supreme Court Justice Washington are of superior legal heft to Rawles, and you seemingly don't like Their opinion.
Justice Washington for the Majority:
"1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them."
Chief Justice Marshall:
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
The two opinions by Supreme Court Justices who were contemporaries of the Founders, are an absolute refutation of your theory, yet you persist in presenting it! Those two quotes blow "Rawles" completely out of the water. They are as of Cannons to a squirt gun!
I am however, certain that you will come back with something which will pretend to be a response. How you can ignore this absolute "shoot down" by TWO members of the Supreme Court (1814) is unfathomable for someone with intellectual honesty. For crying out loud, they BOTH specifically cite VATTEL on the issue of citizenship! The Fish do not jump any higher into the boat than this!
The so-called common law only defines conditions for natural born subjects. There is no common law for natural-born citizenship except for the law of nations definition given in Minor and quoted in WKA.
Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Justice Gray quoted several sources, some conflicting.
There are no sources that conflict with the Minor definition. As has been noted several times, when Gray gives the Minor definition of natural-born citizen, it is the last time he uses this term in the decision.
He quoted many sources that said the US follows common law, that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were analogous, etc.
Sorry, but this is simply not true. There is NOWHERE in the decision that Gray says NBS is analoug with NBC. All you have is BS.
At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone.
Where does it say this??
So as an adult, there was no question of British citizenship.
The issue wasn't about what citizenship Obama claims as an adult. The discussion is about the natural citizenship he would have obtained AT BIRTH.
He would have had to formally renounce, in writing, at a US consulate or embassy.
Wrong. There's no legal evidence Obama was ever a U.S. citizen, so it's not certain he would have had anything to renounce, except maybe the Indonesian citizenship he had.
Gee, funny, I don't see them affirming that they agree with the author's opinion. I see them saying it is the duty of the courts to decide the proper application of the law.
It doesn't say "proper application of the law" but instead "proper application of those PRINCIPLES ..." as in "They can only lay down the general PRINCIPLES of law ..." This is a straightforward statement that the court is following principles from law of nations ... AS conveyed by writers such as Vattel, who is fequently cited by name.
Your own citation shows you are wrong. That law does is not about "grades" of citizens, it deals with those born in outlying possessions, who are called "nationals" and their children.
Nonsense. The term of national is defined the same way a citizen is defined, but it is separated with lesser privileges. Notice in the definitions from Title 8, Chapter 12 that citizens and nationals are equated with only Minor differences, such as right to vote.
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.Trying to be clever, but you're failing. You keep claiming Minor defined NBC, but Minor specifically said it would not resolve the doubt.
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. (22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
Nationals who are not citizens cannot vote or hold elected office. However, they may reside and work in the United States without restrictions and apply for citizenship under the same rules as other resident aliens.
Sorry, but YOU'RE the one trying to be clever but failing. Minor said there was NO DOUBT about NBCs. The only doubts were about the citizenship of persons who ARE NOT NBCs.
Scalia was clear that much US law is interpreted by going back to common law, particularly where the language echoed phrases from English common law. "Natural born" is clear in common law, and Rogers v Bellei and Ankeny are clear that we follow the common law.
Scalia wasn't speaking specifically about "natural born." There is legal precedent from both Minor and WKA that disputes your misinterpretation of common law. Neither Rogers and especially NOT Ankeny override the legal precedent from Minor. The only way Ankeny could try to do it was by contradicting itself several times and by avoiding any specific declaration that Obama was an NBC. Notice they did NOT ever say this.
I can't back off something that I never said to begin with. You understand that, right??
Suggest you look up what a "strawman argument" is.
No problem
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.
You said I was relying on a quote that had nothing to do with the case, but the citation wasn't about the case but about how law of nations has been cited by the court. By continuing to focus on the case, you're continuing to misrepresent my argument. That is a class example of a strawman.
Are you at all aware of how books are usually cited? Book titles are generally capitalized. Note a case from 1883, and another from 1890. When specifically citing Vattel's book, the name of the book is capitalized. Breaking up your long post - see next.
Sorry, but you gave two examples which don't mean a whole lot. I can find examples that still don't captalize the book, but are obviously referencing the book. All you've proven is that Vattel and law of nations gets cited frequently by the court, which in the long run, supports my original point.
Vattel, in his law of nations, which was first printed at Neufchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760, uses this language:
link
A few extracts from an eminent writer on the laws of nations, showing the manner in which these different words have been used and the different meanings sometimes attached to them, will perhaps contribute to explain the reason for using them all in the Constitution, and will prove that the most comprehensive terms were employed in prohibiting to the states all intercourse with foreign nations. Vattel, page 192, sec. 152, says: "A treaty, in Latin foedus, is a compact made with a view to the public welfare by the superior power, either for perpetuity or for a considerable time."
link
The law of nations recognizes the liberty of every government to give to foreigners only such rights touching immovable property within its territory as it may see fit to concede. Vattel, book 2, c. 8, sec. 114.
link
First, The LYNCH judges DID apply common law and you are misrepresenting what was said. You are leaving off the context again, that the LYNCH judge asked "do we apply common law, or is there some national public law that applies." He went through both IN DETAIL, and picked common law. Which point you are trying to hide and misrepresent to the people here. No surprise.
On Minor Happersett, here is how you practice Edge919 Pretend law:
1. Ignore the 1898 case that has all those troubling quotes and stuff in it.
2. Instead, take a 1874 women's voting rights case and try to turn it into a citizenship case (Minor)
3. Even when citizenship is NOT disputed in the case.
4. Then, pretend when the Minor judges say they are NOT going to resolve any doubts about kids of foreigners being NBC.
5. That it means they decided kid of foreigners are NOT NBC.
6.Then, when the Minor judges talk about "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,"
7.Pretend they are NOT talking about "common law" because they didn't quote any cases.
8.Then pretend the Minor judges ARE talking about Vattel and natural law.
9. Even though they DO NOT quote Vattel or even mention "natural law."
10. All so that you can distract people away from the 1898 case with the troubling law in it.
Which to sum it up, is how you get the "Edge919 Way To Practice Pretend Law On The Internet" , namely,:
Ignore what the judges SAY in the case, and make up stuff based on what the judges DIDN'T SAY, and you can make a case say whatever you want it to!!!
Now, aren't you ASHAMED of yourself???
The challenge wasn't about Lynch. Here it is again. Read it this time:
soooooooooooooo the challenge is to go to the Minor decision and find where Waite used common law to aid in the construction of the birth provision of the 14th amendment.
Where does it say antyhing about Lynch??
You are leaving off the context again, that the LYNCH judge asked "do we apply common law, or is there some national public law that applies."
The so-called context doesn't change the FACT that there was a legal precedent that the chancellor simply ignored out of inconvenience. The claim he made was contradicted by the SCOTUS. Is it in YOUR mind that lower court's are NOT supposed to follow legal precedent from the Supreme Court???
1. Ignore the 1898 case that has all those troubling quotes and stuff in it.
You're describing what YOU do, not me. I've cited the 1898 case along with several quotes that YOU find troubling; one in particular that clearly says: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were the natives or natural born citizens ...
2. Instead, take a 1874 women's voting rights case and try to turn it into a citizenship case (Minor)
No one changed the case from voting rights, but only correctly pointed out that citizenship is a part of the question and decision. The 1898 case agrees with me:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....3. Even when citizenship is NOT disputed in the case.
Citizenship was part of the argument. Read it. Learn.
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 ...4. Then, pretend when the Minor judges say they are NOT going to resolve any doubts about kids of foreigners being NBC.
Sorry, but it only says doubts they are citizens. There's are NO DOUBTS about how NBC is defined.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The first class are NBCs. The second class are children born without reference to the citizenship of the parents. There are NO doubts about the citizenship of NBCs. There are only DOUBTS that must be resolved for the persons who are NOT NBCs.
5. That it means they decided kid of foreigners are NOT NBC.
... when the foreigner is NOT naturalized. The definition is self-limiting ... as distinguished from foreigners and aliens. A naturalized foreigner is a citizen, not a foreigner, thus his child would be an NBC. An unnaturalized foreigner's kid; not an NBC.
6.Then, when the Minor judges talk about "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," 7.Pretend they are NOT talking about "common law" because they didn't quote any cases.
Nice counting problem. You make a No. 6 that doesn't even make a point. This always a good sign of an Obot head that has exploded. Second, I challenged you to find in Minor ANY common law that was used to define the provision of the 14th amendment. You admitted there was none and we've already CLEARLY established that NBC is NOT defined by common law. You've been shown several times now, so you know it's true.
8.Then pretend the Minor judges ARE talking about Vattel and natural law.
There's no pretend. Below is the Vattel definition with all the parts used by Waite in defining NBC.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.9. Even though they DO NOT quote Vattel or even mention "natural law."
See No. 8. The Vattel definition is used verbatim. No citation or mention of natural law is needed since that's how Vattel categorized the law of nations. Waite could have been successfully sued for plagiarism.
10. All so that you can distract people away from the 1898 case with the troubling law in it.
Sorry, but there's no troubling law in the 1898 cases, only misinterpretations from troubled minds like yours. You pretend that the parts that trouble you are only "pretend," yet as you can see, I've provided several direct quotes. The childish taunts you resort to about being "ashamed" is only a case of you projecting your own insecurities because you know I'm 100 percent right and it tears you up inside.
No one changed the case from voting rights, but only correctly pointed out that citizenship is a part of the question and decision. The 1898 case agrees with me:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....
Which is from the part in WKA about the 14th Amendment, which YOU say does NOT apply to kids born in the U.S. of two citizen parents. Sooo, you ignore the first part of that paragraph:
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. . .
Which goes on to say they were NOT excluded as you claim, sooo YOU ignore that part of the quote. Then, to try to make Minor a "citizenship" case, you quote the same section you deny, when it is just about how WKA tied the 14th Amendment into natural born citizenship law. Then while you quote WKA quoting Minor on that part, you ignore them when they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he [the Minor Happersett Judge]proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167
This is because if the Minor judges used common law, then you are going to lose again because of stuff like what the Lynch Judge said.
So, no. Like I said before, you are just picking and choosing sentences out of context, and pulling every SOPHISTRY trick you can so that people won't look at the actual law. Which think about it, even if Minor did say everything you have been busily misrepresenting they did say, that case was in 1874, and everybody knows a 1898 case would overrule it. Which it didn't have to overrule, because Minor didn't really didn't say anything except that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to Virginia Minor being able to vote, (and Minor NEVER said that the 14th Amendment did not apply to people born here of citizen parents--that is just your sophistry at work)you had to go to common law to figure out what the term meant, which WKA did, and said:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens. . .
Which is why YOU and other Vattle Birthers keep trying to make the Minor case say a lot of stuff it doesn't say. As I said in a very good Internet Article I wrote:
Now, to most people, it reads like the Minor Judges did not make any ruling on whether or not children of foreigners were natural born citizens if born here. And, to the rest of The Free World, when a court says in a particular case that “it is not necessary to solve these doubts” , well, uh. . . it means they are not going to solve the doubts. BUT, the Vattle Birthers have a little reading comprehension problem caused by the fact that later court cases, like Wong Kim Ark , in 1898, do go on to resolve these doubts, and NOT in a way the Vattle Birthers like. Sooo, Minor vs. Happersett 1874 is like a retreat to the womb for the Vattle Birthers. It is a place to be warm, and safe, and not have to deal with that troublesome Big Kid known as REALITY. They can lay there, all comfy cozy in a fetal position, thumbs in their mouths, and pretend away those bolded words above.
What is even more ironic, is that 24 years later, the Wong Kim Ark judges did quote the Minor case, but not for any supposed definition of natural born citizens. They quoted it to show that the Court had to resort to common law to determine what natural born citizen meant, and that there were only two kinds of citizen, people born citizens and people naturalized as citizens.
Sooo, I guess you are good for something, after all. You are a good, and even GREAT example of how NOT to read cases and interpret them. Tee Hee!!!
This citation is from the part of WJA that said the 14th amendment EXCLUDED children born in the United States of citizens. I didn't ignore the first part of ANY paragraph. What I quoted IS the first part of the paragraph.
Which goes on to say they were NOT excluded as you claim ...
That doesn't go on to say they were NOT excluded. The exclusion is what the Minor decision meant when it said:
But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.When it says "this amendment" it's talking about the 14th amendment. "That position" means citizenship. By defining NBC, it's saying that persons born of citizen parents do not need the 14th amendment ... HENCE they are EXCLUDED. There's no way around this, squeezy. Pick up the pieces of your exploded head and admit you're wrong.
Sorry, this point fails, squeeegy. A) You have to show that Minor quoted Lynch, except that you've already admitted that Minor did NOT quote any cases. B) You still have not shown that Minor's definition of NBC — born to citizens in the country — is a product of common law. Meanwhile I have shown that it is NOT a product of common law.
Which think about it, even if Minor did say everything you have been busily misrepresenting they did say, that case was in 1874, and everybody knows a 1898 case would overrule it.
Minor was not overruled. The issue of voting rights was superceded, but the case has not been overruled. The 1898 case used the same definition of NBC that the 1874 case used. Nothing in the 1989 case said the 1874 definition was wrong. You cite WKA on the 14th amendment after it has already said NBCs were excluded. What you cited doesn't change that. You may continue your meltdown now.
Minor was NOT over-ruled by Wong Kim Ark, because Minor does NOT say what you try to say it does. Plus, you are still QUOTE MINING and taking stuff out of context, TYPICAL sophistry tricks. Here is what you pulled out of context,"But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."
Which is like so DUH!!! Of course MOST people did not need the 14th Amendment to give them citizenship. Because they had this little thingy called COMMON LAW which did. Which was common sense to everybody, because it had always been the law here.
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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Pretty darn simple. I wonder what your motivation is for not getting it???
Everyone outside of birther fantasyland agrees that the WKA decision holds that you are a nbc if born in the USA, no matter the citizenship of the parents. Yet not a single piece of legislation has been introduced to change that ruling and require the bogus Vattel theory as the definition of nbc. It is very common when someone disagrees with a SCOTUS decision that legislation is introduced to repeal or change the decision. This never happened with regard to the nbc issue. If you are trying to change people's mind on this issue, you obviously need to change your tactics. Maybe getting a single Congressman to agree with your birther theory could help.
BTW, the articles you give are about anchor babies, not NBC issues. You seem to love throwing out immaterial and irrelevant information to try to distract from your discredited theory.
I hope they don’t find the Oswald Florp letter. It may be all they need to overturn Wong Kim Ark.
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.