Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
You don’t have a problem with this judge’s legal reasoning?
LLS
Since you are asking about Jack Ryan, and I don’t know how Jack Ryan (and which Jack Ryan) relates to the thread topic, I’ll have to ignore the question.
Just wondering, do you carry water for 0bama pro bono, or do you submit monthly invoices for your ‘services’?
Theirs no 'answer' to it. It's being deliberately misapplied.
Wong Kim Ark petitioned the court as a native born citizen by right of the soil [jus soli], NOT a natural-born citizen by right of his blood [jus sanguinis].
The decision:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Wong Kim Ark
-----
is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen
Is as much a citizen.......He NEVER said Wong Kim Ark WAS a natural born citizen.
--------
Only Natural Law can bestow natural born citizenship because it is inherited through your bloodline.
And no man-made, positive law statute, policy, Act or Unconstitutional pResident can change it.
You really think that any court has even considered the facts? Lawyers are less than pond scum.
NO, I have no problem with the Judge's ruling!
You will NEVER win, this Birther case is very weak, and the Birther cases make us look really stupid!
It was stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii.
On the law?
Born in the USA = Natural Born Citizen!
Case closed!
Go to the link you provided. Look to the right and you'll see the screen name "Jack Ryan" as being the person who posted at Scribd what you've linked to.
Get the picture?
‘Course if the judge (any judge) had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the anti-birthers would be trampling everybody getting to the front of the celebration parade!
Listen precisely to what you`re attempting to argue. You are trying to tell us that the Founders made a clear and exact distinction, FOR NO REASON !
You expect a rational person to accept that a distinction is not a distinction, AT ALL.
The Founders found no need to extrapolate merely because everyone clearly understood the simple idea and fundamentals.
John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Vattel`s Law of Nations, “...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. “
THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”
FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
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...”
Keep telling us the CLEAR DISTINCTION is not a distinction.
Lawyers have argued (and won) District of Columbia v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago. Justice Scalia, for whom I have great respect, was a lawyer before his appointment as a Judge. So lawyers can be helpful or a complete road block.
The facts before the Georgia court were pretty simple - some of the plaintiffs submitted the COLB and agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii. Once that is agreed, the judge is going to follow over 100 years of precedent, and rule him natural born. Anyone who thinks differently is allowing his wishes to corrupt his thinking process.
The Founders made a distinction between Natural Born and Naturalized.
PERIOD!
Natural Born means Citizen at Birth and nothing more.
I notice that you quote Congressional Legislation from 1795. Very well, that law has been stricken and changed several times.
Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment :
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Keep your penumbras and emanations that also say the right to kill babies is also written there in the Constitution.
Traitors get dealt with, one way or the other. Even the good Lord had a traitor in his midst.
@Is that Sense of the Senate Resolution law?
Why do you refuse to answer my question?
I mean, @you tried to answer it yet still failed to do so.
However, the purpose of any Resolution in the House or Senate is much like a Preamble, explaining law or legal findings or legislation that happens later or after said resolution.
I know what it's purpose is.
Just answer the question...Is that Sense of the Senate Resolution law? Yes or no.
” ... that law has been stricken and changed several times.” With penumbras and emanations. Yeah, heard that argument before, “ Killing babies is written right there in the Constitution. Only an idiot can`t see it.”
When it some to the law the last stop on that train is the USSC:
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
” ...It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction,”
Perkins v. Elg’s (1939)
The USSC just cleared up the distinction for you.
CASE CLOSED
Orly said on her site that she filed an appeal, but didn't post the text. Are you saying that the linked appeal is fraudulent?
“Just wondering, do you carry water for 0bama pro bono, or do you submit monthly invoices for your services?”
I’m paid a flat rate of $500/month, plus $2/post. It’s steady work...
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.