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.
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.