Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
No, but the entire rationale of the case, for dozens and dozens of pages, had to do with who was and was not "natural born."
Perhaps you can also explain why the dissent said the majority's decision made people like Wong Kim Ark eligible to be President?
Since you've found my page, you've also found the FACT that I have clear and pretty much conclusive evidence that it was NOT Vattel who contributed "Offences against the Law of Nations" to our Constitution. But you don't mention that. I wonder why?
Oh, wait. We know why, don't we? It's because you already decided that you clearly prefer your birther fantasy to reality, that no evidence and no reality would ever change your mind.
That could ACCURATELY be said of every single thing you've ever written on this subject.
As for my graph, it is simply a SUMMARY of the HISTORICAL and ACCEPTED meaning of natural born citizen. You know, the one that is adhered to by every significant historical authority, and every conservative constitutional organization there is?
I suppose this would be a good time to repost it, for anyone getting to the conversation late.
“The point of any grandfather clause is the sunset effect. Once all who lived at the time the Constitution was adopted died off, the only remaining criteria would be NBC status. So I am not sure how to read your response.”
It is very simple. Those who were naturalized citizens, but who were alive at the time the Constitution was written, were allowed to run for President. It would include Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the British West Indies. As a political matter, his support was useful - he helped achieve ratification by writing 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers.
And since the large majority of those who were naturalized citizens/subjects of the original colonies had gone on to fight in the Revolution, it made sense that they should be of unquestioned loyalty to the new country.
You need to read the clause for what it is. It could have specified those who had been natural born subjects, and thus would have grandfathered in men like Thomas Jefferson - IF the Founders did not believe all natural born subjects who chose loyalty to the new country were natural born citizens of the new country. But that isn’t what they wrote, and isn’t what they believed. All who were NBS in the original colonies, if they remained in the new country, were held to be NBCs of the new country.
And what they WROTE was all “CITIZENS”, and the difference between NBCs and citizens is that the latter included both those born citizens, and those naturalized. As Minor later put it:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”
Citizen includes both. NBC includes only those born citizens. Thus the meaning of your ‘grandfather clause’ is clear - ANYONE who was a citizen, naturalized or by birth at the time the Constitution was adopted - was eligible. It was good politics, and good policy.
“Residents of the colonies through the course of the Revolution, who had not fought for or aided England in warring against the Patriot cause, ipso facto became the original citizens. There was no “naturalized” because these were The People of a new political entity formed out of a previous political entity.”
Correct. And thus Jefferson didn’t need a grandfather clause. Like all the original natural born subjects who remained in the new country, he was automatically considered a natural born citizen of the new country.
Remember, citizenship was critical to inheritance laws. And everyone who had been a NBS, and who remained after the Revolution, was automatically a NBC. This was tested in multiple inheritance cases, and the verdicts were 100%.
Thus the supposed grandfather clause did NOT exist for Jefferson or Washington, because everyone knew they were automatically NBCs of the new country. The grandfather clause allowed those who had emigrated to America prior to the Revolution to also be eligible. Good politics (Alexander Hamilton) and good policy.
If either of you doubt me, consider the case of Shanks v. Dupont - 28 U.S. 242 (1830).
“The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, “and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other.” Who were then subjects or citizens, was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her, and were claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such. If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens. Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons — an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/242/case.html
I’m in the graphics industry. That graph lacks polish. The typograpy in particular looks as if it were done in Microsoft Word.
You created yourself didn’t you?
First, Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did have American citizenship at the time of his birth IN THE UNITED STATES.
I am making no such argument about Rubio. I did not bring up or mention Rubio throughout this entire thread until now. That you can imagine I have, demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention.
Second, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because his mother, an American citizen, married a non-citizen, and temporarily moved to Canada, where Ted was born.
This part you get right.
You are drawing comparisons to non-American citizens, who move to the United States for a few months before their child’s birth, have they baby in the US, then move back to their home country.
I do not consider such people to be citizens. That is YOUR goofy belief.
If you don’t see a distinction, I don’t know what to tell you.
And if you can't see a distinction between an anchor baby being a "natural born citizen" and that of someone born here to two American parents, then I don't know what to tell YOU.
Rubio lived the rest of his life in the United States, and Cruz moved back at the age of four.
What has that got to do with a requirement regarding the circumstances of birth? There isn't a clause in article II granting exceptions for someone who's lived here after the age of four, it ruthlessly demands someone be "natural born."
You cite a case, from the Roe V Wade court, as proof, when the case doesn’t even discuss the issue of natural born citizen.
This serves two purposes. If you claim the court is wrong on Bellei, then you can't claim them as being always right. If you claim that they are always right, then your argument for Cruz smashes against their ruling for Bellei.
You are trapped on the horns of a dilemma. You are wrong no matter which way you interpret the data.
And it’s not really an ad-hominem court. That was one of the most destructive Supreme Courts in history. That’s pretty factual, if you hold conservative beliefs.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all, but then I am the one arguing that something is true just because a court says so. I have very little faith in the pronouncements of the Supreme court. I think they are wrong a lot!
I happen to think they are correct in their ruling on Bellei though. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
This argument about English common law is quite silly too. In my young law school career, I’ve encountered numerous cases where an American court cites to a English court in delivering its opinion.
Much of English law is directly transferable to American law. Much of it is not. Citizenship v Subjectship happens to be one of those cases where American law deviated greatly from English law. Under English subjectship law, (at the time, since changed) a subject must owe perpetual allegiance to the crown, and could not legally renounce their subject status.
The very basis of this nation's existence is the renunciation of English Subject law.
Ladysforest, please post where the US Constitution forbids someone with dual citizenship from being President.
You cannot, because the Constitution A) Does not mention dual citizenship, and B) Allows someone born in the US to foreign parents to become president, although some countries would claim that person as a citizen of their own land.
I apologize for both the error and the chastisement.
----
Now - how about we discuss the fact that the decision never said Wong Kim was a *natural-born* citizen?
According to accepted, widely known history books written prior to 2007, who is recorded as being the last President under the grandfather clause, and who is recorded as being the first natural born President, Mr. Rogers?
You're lawyering and creating plausible motivation and it works to a point, then you collide with recorded history.
You just did.
Nice maneuver in an attempt to draw me into conjecture while evading the original question.
Please show me exactly where in the decision the judges said Wong Kim was a 'natural-born citizen'.
No, I wasn't. You took my post, which was not 100% literal, just a tiny bit too literally.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.
Do you know what's a far bigger fallacy? Your bogus little appeal to authority, where you pose as an expert by throwing out terms like "argumentum ad populum."
As can be seen by the idiotic claims you've previously made, you're no expert.
I refer to such stupid claims as putting forth David Ramsay as a "better" expert than William Rawle. As trying to use Thomas Jefferson's Virginia citizenship law, which was straight jus soli, in favor of your claim. As trying to quote James Madison, who said PLACE OF BIRTH was THE MOST CERTAIN CRITERION and WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES, as some argument in favor of your claim that it takes BOTH place of birth and parentage. As trying to claim that a law passed 13 years after a court case was a response to that court case. As saying that "natural born subject" is unrelated to "natural born citizen" when no one ever stated the two were unrelated, and it's clear that we replaced the word "subject" for the word "citizen" at the exact same time in history that we replaced "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen."
Really, your idiocies just go on and on. Ah, yes. But you're an expert. Because you can say, "argumentum ad populum."
Would you like to produce a graphically better version? That would be a useful contribution.
“The remarks in Wong Ark Kim are what is called the dicta of an opinion. It is not the ruling such as we have in Minor vs Haperstadt (sp) and should not be seriously regarded as one.”
You don’t seem to understand what dicta is, or a holding. I’ll give you a hint: You’ve got things backwards.
We never had a ‘grandfathered’ President, since they all were born in the USA or original colonies. Remember, the clause allowed ANYONE WHO WAS A CITIZEN at the time the Constitution was adopted to become President. CITIZEN includes naturalized citizens.
There was no need for a grandfather clause for Washington. All who were natural born subjects became natural born citizens automatically, with the treaty signed in 1783 although US courts held the date to be 4 July 1776.
This isn’t open for dispute. It was involved in multiple inheritance cases. I’m sorry you have believed otherwise, but no court from early America agreed with you. You are completely wrong on the facts.
Immaterial. You, yourself admit the claim that Wong Kim was determined to be a natural-born citizen is false, yet it is still being presented by you as a truth via the specious reasoning of the 'rationale' instead of the FACTS of the case.
You, sir, are a fraud.
Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me. Let's get back to the original question.
The one that you have again and again refused to answer.
If it can be shown that there is a far better candidate than Vattel for who gave us the phrase "Offences against the Law of Nations" in our Constitution, will you agree that Vattel most likely was not the source?
Now, to your question.
Please show me exactly where in the decision the judges said Wong Kim was a 'natural-born citizen'.
First, show me where the Founding Fathers or Framers ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
You can't? That's a shame. Because I can show you were a very authoritative early American legal expert said that it absolutely DID NOT.
Please show me exactly where ANY significant legal authority ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
You can't? That's a shame, because if you like, I can come up with dozens of quotes that say or at least strongly imply that it doesn't.
Please show me exactly where any Founder or Framer said they relied on Vattel for the meaning of citizenship.
You can't? Well, that's a shame. Because I can show you where one of our most important Framers said that when we needed to understand the meaning of terms in the Constitution, we ought to look to the English common law.
Please show me exactly where Minor v Happersett said two citizen parents are REQUIRED in order for a person to be a natural born citizen, and that without those two citizen parents, one is not a natural born citizen.
You can't? That's a shame.
Now, as regards US v Wong Kim Ark. Your question. Try this:
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.
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?" But...
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THEH [UNITED STATES,] ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE [COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,] AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and in the US. So we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where they originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to subject. So that means that when writing the rule for the United States, we can substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see "subject."
And the also told us that the sovereign, or king has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable and inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is completely disingenuous.
It is all very straightforward.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] [which most definitely included Wong Kim Ark] IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR [which he wasn't,] OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE [which he wasn't,] OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN [which he wasn't.]
That also explains why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases. Because they already decided the issue, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs. Because that is what you are.
And all of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course you will do, since, as we've seen, you're completely and irrevocably committed to believing in birtherism even if it's a complete fantasy.
WKA was found to be both a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen, and those two classes were held to be identical.
You will have a hard time understanding a case you refuse to read.
And what a court ‘holds’ is far broader than just the final statement of the decision. You also might want to read up on binding precedence and persuasive precedence. Although, of course, to date you have refused to read anything...
“The decision of a court or judge; the reasoning underlying such a decision.” - Webster’s New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010
I admit no such thing. The Court VERY CLEARLY determined Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, as I explained in my last post.
My admission was that they did not explicitly state IN THEIR CONCLUDING STATEMENT, "Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen." Instead, because the QUESTION they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?" they said in the concluding statement, "Yes, Wong Kim Ark is a citizen."
But along the way, they VERY, VERY CLEARLY found him to be more than just a "citizen."
It is completely clear that they DETERMINED that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
And this is not disputed by ANY SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AUTHORITY anywhere in the United States. It is only idiotic birthers who can look at this case and make the completely idiotic claim that the Court "failed to determine that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen."
Hehheh , I think you have now beclowned yourself sufficiently.
You have been quite a voluminous source of amusement.
Can I get an AMEN!
And what a court ‘holds’ is far broader than just the final statement of the decision. You also might want to read up on binding precedence and persuasive precedence. Although, of course, to date you have refused to read anything...
“The decision of a court or judge; the reasoning underlying such a decision.”
I completely concur, sir.
Allow me to direct your attention to post 875. Any comments you might have are welcome.
Ah yes - you cannot reply with reason, so you declare victory and move on.
Again: Show where the US Constitution forbids a President from having dual citizenship. What the Constitution does not forbid, it permits. So...where does it forbid?
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.