http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Made perfect sense to me.
So let's explore your theory. By your theory, it matters, a great deal, if some other country says that my child, born here in America, is a citizen of theirs. According to your theory, if that other country extends citizenship to them, and makes them BORN their citizen, then that makes them ineligible to OUR Presidency. Right?
LOL!
You mean like claiming the decision in Wong Kim Ark said he was a natural born citizen when not only did it not say that, it would have been legally impossible for the decision TO say that.
A court can only answer the question put before it.
“None of that made the slightest sense.”
Really? You claim dual citizenship disqualifies a person from being President, even though you admit that the concept of dual citizenship didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. How could they have banned something they didn’t believe existed?
Please show me a single passage from the US Constitution that references dual citizenship. I don’t think one exists. So in what sense does the US Constitution ban a dual citizen from being President?
Suppose Botswana declared Sarah Palin to be a citizen of Botswana. Would that make her ineligible to run for President?
“It seems to me that if you’re a dual citizen, then you’re a dual citizen, whether you were born one or were naturalized. But hey, what do I know?”
Someone who accepts a foreign citizenship, as an adult, would have far more problems with ‘loyalty’ than someone made a dual citizen at birth without any option of rejecting it. If Jefferson accepted French citizenship, then his loyalty would be more questionable by it than Obama being a citizen of the UK against his will - because lets face it, Obama HATES the UK. And while Jefferson could reject being naturalized a French citizen, Obama had no opportunity.
The most adamant opposition here often comes from FReepers I know to be otherwise conservative, but this is a very emotional issue because of having a foreign spouse, children born to a non-citizen spouse, being born abroad, et cetera. It's personal for them. They can't see the national forest for the trees in their own little backyard.
There have been numerous efforts over the decades to undermine the very legal understanding of the term that you, I and others share, that is in fact the historical understanding. If indeed all the personal emoting on this issue is correct and we are wrong, why have so many Bills been sponsored to change it? It would be wholly unnecessary.
Individuals in positions of Federal power, elected and otherwise, dislike the constraints imposed upon them Constitutionally. This is not a party issue, as the problem exists on both sides of the aisle. The political and bureaucratic classes dream of expanded influence, of a post-national existence, and imagine it to be oh so much better than the limited, deliberately hobbled Constitutional vision of Federal government.
The people of this nation, the posterity to whom the Founders referred, are the big losers. We're to the point that we're now being condemned, even labeled as potential terrorists. Unfettered immigration, legal or not, is intended to overwhelm what ability we have remaining to stop it. They're slowly but surely taking our country away from us, cheered on by myopic erstwhile conservatives boo-hooing because *their* little Honey Boo-Boo should be eligible for the Presidency by golly, no matter how bizarrely remote such a possibility might be.
Oh. So you mean that Minor v. Happersett could not POSSIBLY define natural born citizenship, since the question before the Court was whether Virginia Minor should be allowed to vote?
By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Are you willing to go with the evidence on the "law of nations" phrase in the Constitution, or are you completely committed to believing whatever you want, no matter what the evidence?
Come on, now. It's one or the other.
Once again, birthers demonstrate their inability to comprehend legal cases correctly. For one, Bellei's citizenship was stripped for a failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirement. Cruz doesn't have this problem.
Secondly, the statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
You are now making a fool of yourself.
The Constitution does not mention dual citizenship. Likely because it did not even exist as a class of citizenship in 1787. To Congress was assigned the task of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization. That was in the Constitution.
Has Congress since passed any *LAW* officially recognizing dual citizenship? You tell me. No, you show me. You find such a *LAW* and post a copy on this thread.
So, in the sense that Congress has the power to provide for such a class of citizen as “dual citizen”, yes it is in the Constitution. Please to show me that Congress has ever taken such an action and passed any such *LAW*.
You know, I would have to agree with that. But I'm trying to indulge ladysforest argument. And I want to hear the answer to my last question.
If the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship, then how can the Constitution bar a dual citizen from being President?
Indeed it did.
I wonder whether MamaTexan has ever actually READ US v. Wong Kim Ark. Hey, that's a simple yes or no question. Let's ask her.
MamaTexan: Have you ever, prior to my posting this question, actually read the Opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark? Start to finish? Yes or no.
Ever notice how these birthers have a hard time answering simple questions? Like, if the evidence strongly indicates that "law of nations" in the Constitution came from somewhere other than Vattel, would you accept that?
Game, set, match.
You're on a winning streak lately. Can I take bets on you? Is there a betting pool somewhere?
Well, like I said, that’s what I can remember from college. It’s not my theory.
However, after sleeping on it, I’m wondering if it didn’t also have something to do with some sort of “age of accountability.”
After all, if the minimum age of a President is 35yrs old, and you subtract the 14yrs residency requirement (assuming a continuous residency), you hit the magic age of 21-years-old.
That was the voting age back then. So, I’m thinking it might have something to do with that.
I’ve got a few old books sitting around in my library concerning the drafting of the Constitution. I’ll dig into them later on when I’ve got some time and see if they have anything to say on the subject.
Cheers!
My point was in reference to many posters who do not think Rubio is eligible. He was born in USA to non-US citizens.
Well, then how can Obama be eligible when his father was never a US citizen?
The Obama presidency is proof, precedent, and accepted by congress and SCOTUS that any one born on US soil regardless of both parent’s being US citizen are eligible to run for president.
NO no no...just the opposite. What I said is what the US embassy told you is not a legal opinion. It is a government opinion. I see no reason why your son is not eligible to run.
I didn't miss the Hannity interview of Ted Cruz. Hannity pressed many times to get Cruz to answer about running for president and that he is eligible to be president.
Cruz would not budge. Cruz repeatably refused to answer Hannity. Hannity became frustrated with Cruz, and then Hannity predicted rounds of debate over the meaning of NBC in the blogosphere.
It looks like Ted Cruz understands the meaning about being a Natural Born Citizen.
You didn’t address the question. Would it violate the 2nd Article of the Constitution and the 20th Amendment if Vladimir Putin became President and acted as President?
So you are the Supreme Court now? You are the interpreter of the US Constitution? Seems to me that’s what you have accused others of doing, but you’re doing the same thing. Until SCOTUS has clarified an issue it’s up for grabs. The Constitutionality of Obamacare is a prime example of this. All the “birthers” have ever asked is that the issue be weighed according to the rules of evidence, with all the evidence on the table, and a determination made by the proper authorities.
Read radical for these days, I know. Only freaks would actually want the rule of law that has kept this nation free and prosperous to be followed. Anybody who wants America free and prosperous is a loon. See, I can repeat back to you everything you’ve ever said on this issue. Doesn’t take much.
repeatably = repeatedly
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.