Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
“If they have bothered to read the cases they cite, it certainly seems they don’t understand them.”
At some point, you really need to ask yourself why every court and every state thinks you are full of poop. Why is it the folks you think “understand them” always lose, and the folks who don’t understand them always win?
Why is it that no state - not 1 out of 50 - agrees with you? Not Utah. Not Arizona. Not Texas. Not Georgia. Not Alabama.
Why do I provide links to the full decisions, and birthers do not?
Hmmmm???????
You're missing important distinctions: A) the status of the parents was used to determine the status of a child born on U.S. soil and that child was excluded from the 14th amendment. B) This means that not all children born in the country are citizens at birth under this interpretation of the 14th amendment, so it was excluding this set of children. This destroys the idea that being a "native citizen" is sufficient to be eligible for president since this class of "native-born" persons was excluded from citizenship.
I posted the links so anyone CAN read the decisions. There IS a reason no state and no court agrees with you.
You posted an undeniable reason why these courts SHOULD agree with me. The ONLY Supreme Court precedent for defining NBC in direct relation to presidential eligibility is in Minor v. Happersett, which is proved by the Luria citation ... AND its purposeful OMISSION of Wong Kim Ark. You just stabbed the heart of every Fogger, Faither and Obama Excuse Maker on the planet when you gave that citation. Obama is NOT eligible for the office he occupies and YOU proved it.
The cases you cite and link do not define Constitutional natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett does: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Note that Obama was born a foreign citizen via his non-US citizen father. The DNC's "Fight the Smears" website openly admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama Sr's children's citizenship status.
You aren’t a fan of full quotes, are you...
You aren’t a fan of full quotes, are you...The rest of that passage goes on to question whether those born in the US to alien/foreign parents are even US citizens at all. And SCOTUS is absolutely correct in questioning that. I've already shown in this thread that Trumbull and the Senate Judiciary Committee specifically intended to exclude/u> anyone owing allegiance to anybody else from birthright US citizenship in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.
A person learns a lot if they take the time to read. I used to think that Wong Kim Ark provided a strong foundation for believing that being born in the country was sufficient to be considered a natural-born citizen, but the more I read the decision, the more I realized that Judge Gray went out of his way to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and so-called native-born citizens ... in direct deference to the Minor decision. He understood that as a UNANIMOUS decision he would have needed a very strong legal footing to change the precedence established in that decision. Instead, he built up a completely different case, but he knew he had to pile it on deep because it was still a weak justification to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen at all.
Roger reminds me of the joke about how a bunch of idiots were in a battle and threw dynamite at their enemy, who in turn, lit the dynamite and threw it back. Rogers is throwing the dynamite, and I’m lighting it and throwing it back where it blows up in his face.
“The rest of that passage goes on to question whether those born in the US to alien/foreign parents are even US citizens at all.”
No, it does not. But you won’t believe me, so go on believing in a Giant Conspiracy. I suggest getting edge to send you a magic mirror, allowing you to read all decisions backwards...
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our lawsSenator Trumbull is clear that he means to exclude only those "not subject to our laws." You never answered - are you claiming that someone born on American soil of a (non diplomat) foreign father is not subject to US laws on American soil? Again, I urge you to read the whole of Senator Trumbull's comment, of which you are quoting a tiny portion, out of context. Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2893 of 384.
Yes, it does...
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."Note that SCOTUS is defining such children as doubtful citizens ONLY, and then goes on to reaffirm that there is NO doubt that one born in the US to US citizen parents (the first class discussed at the beginning of the passage) is a Constitutional natural born citizen.
While I admire your effort, I concluded from past threads it’s no use discussing anything with Edge.
Edge believes the Minor case decided who was an NBC, although the case was actually about whether Virginia Minor was entitled to vote. He also has an unfortunate habit of leaving off part of a quote so that it says the opposite of what the full quote actually said - be forewarned.
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our lawsYou seem to be skipping the most important part of Trumbull's statement... "It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws"
A born dual national, such as Obama, does not come completely within US jurisdiction. The US State Department publication I linked explicitly states such. Trumbull et al recognized that those who owe allegiance to anyone else can never be completely within US jurisdiction and specifically sought to exclude those persons from birthright US citizenship.
“Some authorities go further...” links it to the previous sentence. Here is what Minor says, in context:
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the 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,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]
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. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
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.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
To repeat:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Notice that in that sentence too, they simply use the word citizen. They did not repeat NBC in every sentence.
Again, I cannot keep you from misreading Minor, but no court has ever upheld your wacko interpretation.
As Ankeny put it:
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
But then, that is a kangaroo court because it believed:
“The 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 Courts 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. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Then you understand the contrast between Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Minister's Association?
That letter was also "just an opinion and not binding," nor was it written into the Constitution or enacted law, but it is still held up as original intent by a non-Framer who was in France at the time of ratification. Interestingly, Paine was also abroad, living in England at the time.
Maybe you could argue that Paine was just a columnist nee pamphleteer, and Jefferson was a president (and a sitting president when the letter was written), but that still doesn't make it law.
-PJ
> > voting the bastard out < <
That’s not good enough. I want his USSC picks invalidated.
I'm sure. Paine seems to be a person who was in the right place at the right time (Common Sense and The American Crisis), but then his radicalism got the better of him later in life.
He seems to be an example of when someone who falls out of favor has his "name stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument... Let the name... be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time." ;-)
-PJ
You seem to be having trouble comprehending that sentence. Here it is in its entirety... "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
The meaning is clear. "Some authorities go further" is actually linked to the rest of the sentence by the words that follow "and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
And is a conjunction. It links two phrases and clauses together. The and in this sentence links "Some authorities go further" to "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"
The meaning is clear: "Some authorities go further [insert implied 'than that'] and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
Wow. I can't believe I'm having to give a grammar lesson.
That's a clear misinterpretation (a deliberate can-kicking misinterpretation, I suspect) of Minor v. Happersett. The sentence I just explained to you very clearly expressed doubts as to whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is even considered a citizen at all. The 'natural born' didn't need to be included because a non-citizen certainly couldn't qualify as 'natural born' in the Constitutional sense.
“Not true. Minor specifically said it wasn’t going to try to resolve the issue. Thus it left it open for WKA to resolve the issue.”
Not true back at you!
What it said was that other forms of born citizenship besides NBC were in dispute, and that that issue was beyound the scope of Minor. (Minor was a NBC) WKA only partially resolved the issue of what other forms of born citizenship there were besides Natural Born Citizenship.......
““Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens. ” You’re clever, use a word search to find it.”
....and then in the following footnote admitted that WKA didn’t actually say that.
Ankeny is a joke! You should be embarred even quoting it! lolololol
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.