Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

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:

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.

Do you think your your convoluted arguments which cite discredited theories from centuries ago rather than Scotus cases that are right on point are going to change anyone’s mind?

No. Anyone with a functional one can already see what is the truth. You have seemingly overlooked the fact that the Constitution itself is made up of "theories from centuries ago".

LOL We already know that every judge that has addressed the nbc issue in the past 100+ years has used WKA rather than Vattel or Minor as the guiding precedent.

And that is what is wrong with relying on the methodology of "Precedent." The first mistake gets repeated endlessly.

Can you name a single US Congressman or Senator in the last 100 years to agree with the discredited Vattel theory?

Would it make something true if a Senator or Congressman believed it? Rep. Hank Johnson thought Guam was going to "tip over". Yeah, i'd put my eggs in that basket if I was an idiot too.

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.

And everyone once thought Blacks were inferior. Just because an idiocy is wide spread, does not make it true. Since you seem to be especially uneducated regarding the rules of logic, I will take this occasion to introduce you to a prominent fallacy (a fallacy is an example of false reasoning.) called "argumentum ad populum." If you want to learn how to prove something, you have to first realize that your arguments have to stand on their own merits. Appeal to the opinion of the "people" does not prove anything in the logical sense, which is the only sense that counts unless you are an idiot.

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.

You really should learn what you are talking about BEFORE you put your foot in your mouth. No doubt you will be unable to see the connection.

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.

Well, since Halley's comet occurs once every 70 years or so, there might not be much need to pay attention to it;( A Metaphor which even now, is eluding your grasp.) All I can advise is GET SMARTER! When was the last time we had an illegitimate Presidential candidate? Oh, I know! 1916, and yes, he WAS challenged. Here is a Video for someone of your mental acuity.

If you are trying to change people's mind on this issue, you obviously need to change your tactics.

Only reasonable minds can be changed. The rest, like yours, are only suitable for amusing we who like to torment them.

Maybe getting a single Congressman to agree with your birther theory could help.

God knows the truth revolves around the opinions of Congressmen. Or is it lies? I can never remember which one it is that politicians are always spouting.

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.

Is it my fault that you lack the insight to see connections which are obvious to smarter people? If you think the two issues are not intimately connected, more's the pity for you.

Re the Naturalization Act of 1790

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.

Yes, it reveals what they thought about children of American citizens born overseas. It doesn't say squat about those born on US soil. And I would point out to you that considering children of English subjects born overseas as "natural born" is also part of English law, from a series of acts starting in 1700 and going up through 1773. by the last listed, they included those whose fathers (but not mothers) were English subjects. Sounds a little like our Naturalization Act of 1790, doesn't it?

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.

In some of your posts, it sounds like you are saying those you disagree with simply don't exist as law. Denounce all you want, but you can't argue the law out of existence by "challenging" people to "defend" them. Many here are not defending specific decisions, they are pointing out those decisions exist, and are currently accepted law. Arguing that those decisions are not law is pointless and makes you look like a kook. You will not "argue them out of existence," you can change the law/Constitution, or change the judges. But those judges we like best (assuming you do like Justice Scalia) will be unsympathetic because they know our law came from Common law.

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.

Now that argument makes zero sense. Argue that it should be changed because it allows anchor babies - that makes sense. Argue that it enforces servitude on those born here? No one is forced to remain an American citizen if they don't want to. Anyone crazy enough to want to expatriate can easily do so. Servitude? You do have odd ideas. :)

I will be off line starting tomorrow morning (I will answer all posts up as of now.) So don't take my silence as unwillingness to answer and debate, or lack of ammunition. If this thread is still going on my return, I'll be back in the fray.

No, it’s not time for ME to do anything. It time for YOU to prove something for a change. All you ever do is sit around and butcher quotes and try to mis read stuff, sooo it is YOUR turn for a long time to PROVE something.

First, prove how come Minor, a ruling that applies to the State of Missouri and its voting laws, applied to the whole country. Do people born here of two citizen parents NOT having 14th Amendment citizenship rights, as YOU claim, apply ONLY for those such people in Missouri, or does it apply to all Americans. If Missouri, what if a Missouri person moves.

Next, PROVE, if you think that a supreme court case about Missouri voting laws applies to the whole country, prove that YOUR interpretation that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to people born here of two citizens has been EXPRESSLY stated by a court anywhere in the country. Not implied, or interpreted by YOU to mean that, but where a court has come right out and expressly said that somebody born here of two citizen parents after the year of 1899, and not the kid of a diplomat or invader, that such a person does NOT have 14th Amendment citizenship rights. And I want you to link any such cases you find. Then, I want you show me where another court has read that case the same way you have and says so directly.

Next, I want you to prove to me that a court in America has ever quoted Vattel for the purposes of deciding who was a natural born citizen. I want the case, and I want you to list the facts of the case, the time of the case, and where the court said, “based on Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship we find [fill in the name here] to be or not to be a natural born citizen.

Next I want you to find me court cases where a court has quoted Minor for the purposes of determining citizenship, not for having to go to common law, or for there being only two sources of citizenship, but where a court has come right out and quoted Minor for what YOU say Minor says, which is, “to be a natural born citizen you MUST (not MAY, but MUST) be born here and have two citizen parents, where that court denied citizenship to a person born here on that basis.” (because remember, you are excluding children of foreigners)

Then, I want some proof of YOUR theory when a court quotes a part of a case, that means that the court is adopting every part of that case that it quoted, not just the language they quoted and referred to. I don’t want where YOU read it that way, but where a court says it in English where everybody gets it. If you can’t find one, then you have to stop going back to Shanks and Dupont through U.S versus Rhodes. Because that is just YOU expanding the court case to pick up something you think agrees with you. (But which really doesn’t and was already a LOSER argument in 1844).

Next, I want you to find me proof in cases, where a court comes right out and says that a person has to be born here AND have two citizen parents to be president. With no doubts expressed by the court. Not IMPLIED, not INTERPRETED by YOU to mean that, not read by YOU that way, but where a court comes right out in English and says it.

Finally, I want you to analyze the second part of Ankeny, and show where that court relied on anything weird or out of the ordinary in determining that kids born here are natural born citizens. NOT just that you disagree with the case, or that you think they were wrong, but quote the court cases they use, and why those cases are not good, recognized law. And use cases to back up what you say. NOT your interpretations of cases, but the cases themselves. Soo, if the Ankeny case quotes WKA, you don’t get to just say WKA is wrong. You have to PROVE how it is wrong with other cases,

I am NOT asking for more of your cut and paste gibberish. I want legal cases where you can back up your theories with understandable sentence constructions, not just sophist word games like you have been doing.

Next, I want you to analyze each of the seven sections of Wong Kim Ark, in brief general terms, of what the section is saying, and how it relates to each other section. This is to be in YOUR words.

I think that all of this is only fair. You Vattle Birthers have proposed a very minority held legal theory, and sooo far, I have not seen any proof of any parts of it. The only thing I have seen done is quote butchering, and taking stray sentences here and there and then playing illogical and inconsistent word games. This is YOU Vattle Birthers’ theory, and if it is good, then you should be able to back it up where everybody can see.

Us people who disagree with you, are always giving quotes, and links, and decisions, and you lazy Vattle Birthers seem to think it is YOUR job just to be lazy and play word games. I don’t think so. You say your theory is right, then PROVE it.

And, I am going to give you a easy way out of all of the above if you want it, that is also fair. If YOUR whole legal theory is based on that one paragraph in MINOR, which it seems like it is, then just admit it, and skip all the other stuff. That way from now on when we debate, we aren’t having to waste page after page on WKA, and other cases, if you are trying to read WKA through YOUR colored glasses of Minor.

I think that is a very fair option.

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!

Let's dissect that a bit. If your side has "ten times the evidence, no one here has seen it. We have seen opinions declared fact, butchered quotes (not from you), and statements taken out of context while equally or more numerous statements in the same case for the other side are ignored.

As for what you call "handwaving" we have statements from court cases (including the definitive Rogers v Bellei, and Ankeny) Statements from US Attorneys General, Legal writers from the early days of the country.

In terms of the English common law "from a nation who's rule we threw off" I am always entertained when the "natural born" brigade comes up with this one. In case you are not aware, we did not fight England because we didn't like common law. We fought because the freedoms which common law guaranteed were withheld from the colonies. (Remember "no taxation without representation?" That trials by jury were abolished in the colonies by the King?) Here, for instance is the English Bill or Rights of 1689.

You seem to make a big deal out of one piece of British common law we did not adopt - the right to expatriate. There are other places where we differ from English common law (9th and 10th amendments, to my unlawyerly eye). Pointing to where we differ does not change the large amount of American law that came from English law (as proclaimed by Justice Scalia.)

I have already ceded Rawles to you. He is one of those that simply didn't get the memo.

As you dismiss every one that differs.

Your quote from Justice Washington proves nothing, as he is discussing the rights of citizens vs. what we now call "legal residents". This does not address your "natural born" issue. As to "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." are you now coming to realize that "subject" and "citizen" are often analogous in English and American law respectively? True progress!

As to the Marshall quote, firstly, you seem to fall prey to Edge's problem, assuming that "law of nations" always refers to the book by that name, rather than the body of international law. As I said before, it's rather like assuming every time "chemistry" is mentioned it refers to the textbook I used in high school with that name. The greater problem with the quote is that it was not about who was a citizen, he cited a large block of Vattel, mainly bearing on whether American merchants residing in England were now considered enemies who could have their goods taken by an American privateer. Marshall is not exploring the issue of "natural born," but rather a matter affected by international law. If I recall correctly, you were one of the people who didn't want to deal with cases that weren't specifically about citizenship? (or am I confusing you with someone else?)

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!

Sheesh. How about the members of the Supreme Court early on who cite common law on citizenship? Have you somehow overlooked Justice Marshall and Justice Story repeatedly citing common law on citizenship in INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOR? I suspect you have.

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.

As nice a piece of attempted obfuscation as I have seen in a while!

You say "so-called common law" - are you denying there is such a thing as common law? If you are, you have a lot of judges and legal scholars to argue with including Justices Scalia and Thomas.
You appear to be conflating Vattel's Law of Nations with the common law. You have any back up for that legal theory?
Minor did not define "natural born," he said there was doubt, and That the case would not resolve that doubt. You do understand what "doubt" means, don't you?
WKA quoted many people on common law, including those who equated "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen". Ignore it as much as you like, you won't make it disappear.

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.

There is no "Minor definition" just "Minor doubt." And there are several sources quoted in WKA, which I have cited repeatedly, which conflict with Vattel's definition. See my post #373. Also note from Gray's quote two distinct groupings: natives or natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. So, two sets of synonyms. Since he adjudged WKA not an alien/foreigner, it is quite obvious he is in the first set of synonyms: native/natural born. Or do you disagree that alien = foreigner?

Breaking up my answer into a few posts. As I mentioned to DL, I will be off line the next several days.

At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone.

Where does it say this??

The Kenyan Independence Act of 1963. One relevant section:

(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Coloniesshall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

Then go look at the 1963 Constitution of Kenya, which specifies in Section VI that

Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Which means when Sr. became a Kenyan citizen, so did 0bama, and both lost British citizenship.

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.

Ah, so you're one of those "it doesn't matter what certificates are shown, it doesn't matter what Hawaii says, he wasn't born here" types. The evidence is very strong that he was, indeed, born in Hawaii. And there has been no credible evidence that he was born elsewhere.

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.

Yes, in regards to domicile as applied to whether the merchant may have his ship seized. The owners of the ships had been British, were naturalized US citizens, who returned to Britain and were resident there when war broke out. You want to equate them with "natural born"? Another funny thing for your contention, the Justice also cites common law - did you notice?

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.

Good try. Look at the original portion you cited which says

INA: ACT 308 - NATIONALS BUT NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Nationals are not citizens. Your own citation says so.

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...

As to your continued insistence that Minor defined NBC, the case didn't and said it wouldn't. It gave one instance of someone who clearly was an NBC, but didn't exclude others. Your insistence is an example of a composition fallacy.

Scalia wasn't speaking specifically about "natural born."

No, but he sure did speak to much of the Constitution being based on common law, and that phrases well known in common law (natural born subject) were often directly used or modified into the Constitution.

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.

There was no "legal precedent from Minor" to override, since Minor specifically said it was not going to address the doubt. (Do you understand what legal precedent is?)Rogers v Bellei affirmed

Our law in this area follows the English concept of jus soli

which is pretty clear cut. Ankeny said

he 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.

Ankeny did not have a reason to specifically state 0bama was an NBC - that wasn't the question before them. The question was whether to overrule the lower court ruling. Did you read the case? For those who need things spelled out, they also cite Diaz v INS,

noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”

They have cited a whole category - children who are natural born though their fathers were not citizens. Is that clear enough for you?

And that's it for me for the next 4-5 days. May they bring you more wisdom and better reading comprehension.

As nice a piece of attempted obfuscation as I have seen in a while!

Right. A direct quote is "attempted obfuscation" followed by the classic strawmen you rely on so much.

•You say "so-called common law" - are you denying there is such a thing as common law? If you are, you have a lot of judges and legal scholars to argue with including Justices Scalia and Thomas.

I said "so-called" because of your claim about common law supposably defining "natural born." In law of nations, natural-born is based on natural, universal principles. In England, 'natural-born' is based on statutory, but arbitrary declarations, influenced by the whims of the crown. The latter is what was described in Calvin's Case where the King declared that children of Scots born in England were heretoforward natural-born subjects. The Scots were the ONLY aliens this originally applied to. The principles of citizenship in the U.S. are based on consent of the governed, not obligations demanded of a monarch.

•You appear to be conflating Vattel's Law of Nations with the common law. You have any back up for that legal theory?

Yes, the Minor case where Justice Waite used the term "at common law" to begin his definition of NBC, but the actual definition is, as we ALL know, a verbatim match of law of nations. I'll show this one more time and then we'll check to see if you're honest enough to admit that it matches.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Waite used all three parts that are underlined above. He did not add any other criteria to define NBC, nor did he allow for alternate criteria.

•Minor did not define "natural born," he said there was doubt, and That the case would not resolve that doubt. You do understand what "doubt" means, don't you?

Sorry, but this is an outright falsehood. His criteria for NBC was "never doubted." The part for which there was doubt was about whether persons born without reference to parents were CITIZENS. It does not say there is doubt about them being natural born citizens. If they met the criteria for NBC, there was no doubt that these persons would be citizens. If they weren't NBCs, then there was doubt about their citizenship.

•WKA quoted many people on common law, including those who equated "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen". Ignore it as much as you like, you won't make it disappear.

Sorry, but this is not completely true. The closest anything comes to "equating" NBS and NBC in WKA is from a circuit court decision that referred to Shanks v. Rhodes, which said that persons born in the U.S. could be subjects of Great Britain via a Treaty. The Minor definition overrules this, which is why the Minor citation comes AFTER U.S. v Rhodes and gives the FINAL determination of what it means to be an NBC.

There is no "Minor definition" just "Minor doubt."

There is NO "Minor doubt." The Minor decision was UNANIMOUS. The NBC definition of NBC said it was NEVER doubted. WKA affirmed that Minor was declared a citizen by BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. If the common law theory was the legal precedent, why would Justice Gray say ANYTHING about the citizenship of Minor's parents ... especially when Minor didn't specifically say Minor was born to citizen parents??? How much "doubt" was Gray showing about the Minor definition and decision? Answer: None.

And there are several sources quoted in WKA, which I have cited repeatedly, which conflict with Vattel's definition. See my post #373.

Post #373 was thoroughly debunked in post #375.

Also note from Gray's quote two distinct groupings: natives or natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. So, two sets of synonyms. Since he adjudged WKA not an alien/foreigner, it is quite obvious he is in the first set of synonyms: native/natural born. Or do you disagree that alien = foreigner?

You're ignoring inconvenient facts. Natives are defined here as born to citizen parents. Was WKA born to citizen parents?? No. Is WKA a "native" in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar"??? No. Absolutely not. Is it possible to be a citizen without being a "native or natural-born citizen"?? Yes. Is it possible to naturalize aliens at birth?? Yes. Did the 14th amendment citizenship clause apply to natives or those who were considered aliens?? According to this quote in WKA, it applied to aliens.

The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States, equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of this court.

By citing this quote, Gray is putting Wong Kim Ark in the category of strangers and aliens who invoked the jurisdiction of the court. Can an alien become a citizen at birth?? Certainly, but they are NOT natural-born citizens, which explains why WKA was never called a natural-born citizen NOR a native. Gray says in the facts as "agreed by the parties" that Wong Kim Ark "was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States ..." but Gray doesn't specifically apply the term native-born citizen to WKA in the conclusion. It says WKA became a citizen at the time of his birth ... but not that he was born a citizen. Sorry, but there are plenty of distinctions here. Your attempt to make WKA an NBC by comparing synonyms fails.

The Kenyan Independence Act of 1963. One relevant section:

Your relevant section is disputed by ANOTHER relevant section:

(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, a person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’s father — (a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony;

(3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his father or his father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British subject.

The Kenya Constitution only says that such a person BECOMES a citizen of Kenya, it doesn't say they lose their other citizenship. Plus there's a whole section on dual citizenship in that same Constitution.

Ah, so you're one of those "it doesn't matter what certificates are shown, it doesn't matter what Hawaii says, he wasn't born here" types. The evidence is very strong that he was, indeed, born in Hawaii. And there has been no credible evidence that he was born elsewhere.

Gee, if you could read, you would have understood where I stand on this issue in the OP:

When we apply these situations to Barry Soebarkah Soetoro Hussein Obama, we see that even if he could prove he was born in the United States, he would not have been legally considered to be a natural-born citizen.

Yes, in regards to domicile as applied to whether the merchant may have his ship seized.

You're still trying to salvage your strawman. Again, this case was cited over the capitalization of law of nations. That you're punting that argument in favor of the particulars in The Venus makes a solid concession on the actual point of contention. Thanks.

Another funny thing for your contention, the Justice also cites common law - did you notice?

That is funny. Now you're suddenly willing to equate common law AND Vattel references. You make this too easy for me.

Nationals are not citizens. Your own citation says so.

No, in one instance it specifically defines them as citizens: "The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, ..."

As to your continued insistence that Minor defined NBC, the case didn't and said it wouldn't. It gave one instance of someone who clearly was an NBC, but didn't exclude others. Your insistence is an example of a composition fallacy.

Sorry, but the only composition fallacy is YOURS. You're misreading what the decision said was doubted, which was the citizenship of those who didn't fit their NBC definition. And, it didn't give ONE instance. It used the NBC definition to justify the court's reasoning for saying WOMEN didn't need the 14th amendment to be citizens. If there was doubt about NBCs, then this opinion is NOT supported.

No, but he sure did speak to much of the Constitution being based on common law, and that phrases well known in common law (natural born subject) were often directly used or modified into the Constitution.

Let's see the context of his comments. In this case, where he wrote the opinion of the court, he has no problem footnoting Vattel in reference to a second amendment issue:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

link

There was no "legal precedent from Minor" to override, since Minor specifically said it was not going to address the doubt. (Do you understand what legal precedent is?)Rogers v Bellei affirmed

Sorry, but this is a post out of sheer ignorance. Minor DEFINED NBC. That definition was quoted and affirmed. For someone who complains about so-called quote butchering, that's ALL you have. You're trying to butcher a quote on doubts about citizenship for some persons into doubts about natural-born citizenship, when the definition for latter was "never doubted." Rogers v. Bellei only affirmed jus soli for statutes of the colonies: "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence." Mr. Quote Butcher, you're dropping the context here.

And dude, don't make me laugh. You're citing some of the weakest and most embarrassing parts of the Ankeny decision:

... they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century.

Ummmm, hoosier hillbillies ... the 18th century treatise is the same one that Scalia cited by name and the quotations of Members of Congress are from the AUTHORS of the 14th amendment. It's called "original intent."

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 ...

To the extent that the authors of the 14th amendment conflict with the SCOTUS's interpreation of what it means to be a natural born citizen?????? Are these hillbillies on drugs?? There was no conflict between those sources.

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.

Translated: This court says "nanny,nanny boo boo." They simply sweep the inconvenient citations under the rug and contradict themselves on how they interpret the SCOTUS.

Ankeny did not have a reason to specifically state 0bama was an NBC - that wasn't the question before them. The question was whether to overrule the lower court ruling. Did you read the case?

Did you read my posts on Ankeny?? I've cited several contradictions they made. And thanks for proving one my points. Ankeny did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC ... NOR did they declare him eligible for office. Squeeky's head is going to explode again. You're not helping her cause.

For those who need things spelled out, they also cite Diaz v INS,

noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”

... and you seem to forget that Diaz v INS was part of my OP. The court in that case took the claim of NBC at face value and kicked it in the nuts by saying they didn't care ... the kids can move back to Mexico. Evidently the Ankeny court would have no problem with Obama being deported. Neither do I. This thread has come full circle. Thanks for helping me prove all my points.

squeegy, all you’re doing is showing that your head keeps exploding.
1) You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the Supreme Court. You focus on the state of misery, yet do you see Gray say ANYTHING about that state when he cites Minor??? There’s a reason. Come back when you understand the purpose and the impact of SCOTUS decisions.
2) You’ve been shown TWO landmarks cases that use the same definition of NBC and all you’re doing is denying the obvious. No other courts go higher than the SCOTUS.
3) You’re using a strawman about quoting one part = quoting every part. Nobody said this at all. I gave direct quotes and showed full context of how the quotes were applied.
4) The Minor definition of NBC was given to satisfy the meaning of the term as found in Art II Sec I. It applies to how presidential eligibility is defined. It speaks for itself. What better precedent would there be??
5) I’ve dissected Ankeny several times already. Review the thread. Even sometimes lurker admitted that it did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC nor did it declare him to be eligible for office. Posts #333 and 302 are good ones to re-read.
6) If you want a summary of WKA, Gray frames the question on the basis of WKA being a “native-born citizen” with parents who had permanent domicile and residence. He says the terms are NOT defined in the Constitution and the history must be reviewed to understand the terms “in light of” the common law (which is legally meaningless). Immediately he notes that NBC is NOT defined in the 14th amendment. If it was, he could have stopped there. From there he begins reviewing English common law. This wouldn’t be necessary if Justice Waite had accepted V. Minor’s 14th amendment argument. Part III reviews citizenship principles and statutes in the English colonies. Part IV adds some international law to the common law. Part V looks at the 14th amendment and how it was interpreted by the courts at which point it cites and affirms Minor on NBC and never again uses the term NBC in the decision. Part VI is a review of how Chinese persons were treated by courts in terms of citizenship. Part VII s the conclusion based on a new term: “citizenship by birth” as defined by the 14th amendment under the criteria of permanent domicil and residence. Both Gray’s NBC and 14th amendment citizenship by birth definitions exclude Obama from being a citizen. Providing Obama could legally prove he was born in Hawaii, he is ONLY a citizen by virtue of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 per the section on Hawaii.

Yes, it reveals what they thought about children of American citizens born overseas. It doesn't say squat about those born on US soil.

You are correct. That is because they considered it IRRELEVANT to "natural citizen" status.

And I would point out to you that considering children of English subjects born overseas as "natural born" is also part of English law, from a series of acts starting in 1700 and going up through 1773. by the last listed, they included those whose fathers (but not mothers) were English subjects. Sounds a little like our Naturalization Act of 1790, doesn't it?

Absolutely! And THAT aspect of English law was specifically adopted by statute! Thank you for making my point for me. :)

That may be what you read, but that is not what I write. I argue that Lawyers and Courts get stuff wrong. The very few examples you provide are such cases. You have acknowledged that Courts can and do get things wrong. I have demonstrated by citation of first principles that this is the case in those examples you have put forth such as Wong Kim Ark.

You will not "argue them out of existence," you can change the law/Constitution, or change the judges. But those judges we like best (assuming you do like Justice Scalia) will be unsympathetic because they know our law came from Common law.

You just admitted that our "naturalization act of 1790 was very like the "English Fathers" common law. If your theory is correct that our laws governing citizenship are based on the English Common law, then what need would there have been to Create this specific aspect of it through statute? Hmmm????

If it already existed as an aspect of that Same English Common law which you keep citing, it would have been unnecessary to articulate it by the passage of a new law. The fact that they did so demonstrates that they did not simply keep the English law on citizenship.

Now that argument makes zero sense. Argue that it should be changed because it allows anchor babies - that makes sense.

Which corresponds to what I said. It serves no purpose for a free society to create such "instant citizens". It causes a detriment to our society because of non loyal people claiming our benefits without a commensurate obligation placed upon them.

Argue that it enforces servitude on those born here?

You are failing to understand what I am saying. It does not force servitude on those born here, because we are a free society. Automatic citizenship for transient aliens is not beneficial to us BECAUSE we do not force servitude on them. On the other hand, the English Monarchy which created the jus soli principle, DID, in fact make servants out of them. If Transient Alien's children are to be made into "subjects" required to serve the needs and desires of the state, then it makes perfect sense to push them into this status for any pretext, such as being born within someone's borders.

Jus Soli benefits a monarch desirous of gaining "subjects." (Servants.) It DOES NOT benefit a free nation. It is detrimental to a free nation, as the occurrence of "anchor babies" aptly demonstrates.

No one is forced to remain an American citizen if they don't want to. Anyone crazy enough to want to expatriate can easily do so. Servitude? You do have odd ideas. :)

You have an odd understanding of my ideas. Yes, Americans are free to be a citizen/subject of whatever nation they so choose. In a monarchy though, they are chained to perpetual allegiance and servitude to the monarch. Jus Soli makes SENSE if used in this manner. It makes no sense whatsoever for US to do it.

Well, as you currently seem to be the only person on your side that I see worth the trouble of debating, I suspect this discussion is going to take a lull until you return.

I know what WKA is about. You are the one who refuses to admit what it says. Because you CAN NOT read the case without your pre-conceived lunacy.

How edge919 reads WKA:

1.There is a difference between a NBC and a 14th Amendment born citizen because some pretend lawyer on the Internet said that Vattel says so
2.Look, the WKA judges call Wong a Citizen, not a NBC.
3.Yippee!!! This proves I am right about No.1 above!!!

How a rational person reads WKA

1.Crap, this is a long case. Hmmmm,people born in England are NBJs no matter who their parents were. Hmmm. Hmmm. Same in America for the NBCs. Hmmm. Hmmm. 14th Amendment affirms this ancient rule. Birth here and allegiance is same as birth here and jurisdiction.Hmmm.
2. Look, the WKA judges call Wong a Citizen, not a NBC.
3. Wow, they are the same thing and I read the case right, and so did the Indiana judges and most every other SENSIBLE person.

See. The difference is, that the words you quibble about are only meaningful to people who start off with a preconceived idea and want to play sophistry games. Which is why the Indiana judges told those Vattle Birthers:

[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.

I want YOU to summarize EACH section of WKA to see how you will glide past all the stuff you ignore, which is 99.9% of the case.

I know what WKA is about. You are the one who refuses to admit what it says. Because you CAN NOT read the case without your pre-conceived lunacy.

Sorry, but you're making up faleshoods out of your own desperation. Nothing was "pre-conceived." When I first read the Wong Kim Ark decision a couple of years ago, I had the same opinion you did ... until I started noticing how Gray would never directly come out and say Ark was a natural-born citizen. Gray used a bit of your technique to baffle folks with bullishness ... plus a large dose of quantity rather than quality - for his justification of the 14th amendemnt. That's what makes Minor so compelling. Minor didn't go to great lengths to examine how one was declared to be a citizen. The language is simple, direct and to the point: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The Minor decision could have easily accepted the 14th amendment citizenship argument, but they did not. Maybe it was out contempt for congress or out of a sense of conservatism, but the point is, they said what they said and Gray followed the legal precedent that was established. I've given you a point by point explanation of how Gray wrote his decision and right on cue, you're letting your head explode instead of admitting that you're wrong. A rational person does not work as hard as you do to discredit the messenger. The message speaks for itself. WKA and Minor both affirmed that NBC = born in the country to citizen parents. Period. Game. Set. Match.

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.