Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
Ummm ... no, it did not. What you cited is a based on the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution. The dissent agreed with the majority on how 14th amendment citizens were defined, which would mean Justice Fuller would have to disagree with his own citation of Vattel for defining natural-born citizen. Rogers, as always, it helps to have read the WHOLE decision, not just the parts with the words YOU want to believe in.
Does it bear that construction, or rather is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens, and not otherwise - - - In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens;
The ONLY part of the majority decision that Fuller actually disagreed with is that children of resident aliens could be born citizens when a treaty says otherwise. Otherwise, Fuller bought the rest of Gray's common law citizenship by birth definition for resident aliens under the 14th amendment. He even USED the same term as is bolded above: citizenship by birth.
A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power.
Do you understand Rogers?? Fuller says the 14th amendment does not have the power to abridge treaty-making power. Had there not been a treaty with China preventing its subjects from becoming U.S. citizens, Fuller would have fully (pun intended) agreed with the majority. He STILL made a distinction between such 14th amendment citizenship and natural-born citizenship ... but that, as you know full well (pun intended again), was the same distinction made by the majority opinion when it cited, affirmed and failed to dispute Minor's exclusive definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizen."
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/arizona-judge-grants-leave-to-amend-obama-ballot-challenge
I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but what I get from this is that the judge dismissed the case because the plaintiff didn’t properly serve the defendant, BUT the judge is allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint and refile, the refiling fee waived if submitted by March 1.
Can those who read legalese better than I correct me if I’m wrong? Thanks!
From ONE state ... as clerical entries ... although it does appear that subjects is applied more frequently to former British residents while citizen tends to apply more often to former residents of other countries ... and in these citations, the terms NBS and NBC are only used in naturalization cases. So are you arguing these people are eligible for president?? If not, then the examples prove absolutely nothing. It certainly has no bearing on why the framers chose the term NBC for the Constitution nor does it make the dicta in WKA "interchangeable" ... sorry, it's simply connecting unconnected dots.
Now to your definition and what you left off, that being the first part...
So once again you only post that which appears to prove you right.
That sounds right, but I see a red flag. The judge was saying that elections have to follow statutory provisions. If there’s not a statutory provision that clearly spells out a requirement for Constitutional eligibility and/or a stautory definition of eligibility, the court may choose to deny the future motion if it gets filed and served properly.
Thank you for the clarification.
We have a common law legal system. That is by definition a legal system where judges uses case law and precedent when interpreting the law. The principle.behind it is that the same set of facts should be interpreted the same way every time.
All those positive laws are interpreted in light of previous case law.
Why do you think that every Supreme Court ruling is a litany of prior cases?
Oh golly. I didn’t copy the ENTIRE article. Just provided a link to the rest. How evil of me...
The citizenship of WKA was the point of the case, and that on which they heard arguments. Unlike Minor, which depended on the question, “Does every citizen have the right to vote?”
What WKA wrote about NBC/NBS was NOT irrelevant to the case, but central. Not that I expect a birther to understand it, since birthers don’t actually READ anything.
WKA says it is all the same - NBC = NBS = 14th.
There is no trap. They argued it is all the same. They spent half the decision showing he met the requirement for an NBC, then they show that is the same requirement the 14th uses.
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King...
...It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
They spent half the decision showing he met the requirement for an NBC...
What are the requirements for an NBC?
“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
So in summary, the case was thrown out because the plaintiff didn’t serve the subpeona directly - they sent it via registered mail. Is this a total blunder or a means by which the Arizona court system gets this issue quashed by technicality??
It seems that everything that can go wrong, will go wrong - Murphy is at it again...
The case has been delayed. The plaintiff can refile at no cost. It was dismissed without prejudice - so the court did not say anything about the merits of the case.
Anyway, that's not a list of requirements.
They spent half the decision showing he met the requirement for an NBC...
What are the requirements for an NBC?
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.