http://www.zoominfo.com/p/William-Bryan/1651035324
Posted on 05/06/2013 7:09:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/William-Bryan/1651035324
Why don't you quote the rest of what the Supreme Court has said on the matter?
Oh, yeah. It doesn't support your BS claim.
You can sling your BS all you want. You can accuse me of being this guy, or Charles Manson, or Michael Moore, or Helen Thomas, all you want.
Doesn't change the facts. And the fact is: You're slinging absolute BS. YOU'RE the Constitution-twister here.
And no matter who you allege I am, and no matter what other BS you try and cook up and distract from that fact, that's the fact, Jack.
US v. Wong Kim Ark: The Case that Decided the Status of Persons Born on US Soil to Non-Citizen Parents
The US Supreme Court case which definitively decided the status of children born on US soil of non-citizen parents was US v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
"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?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
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 was 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 THE 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 then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they 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. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
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.
Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
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.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
This claim completely and absolutely misunderstands or misrepresents how legal precedent works.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
We should also note that while birthers make this "they stopped short of saying Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen in the final statement" claim for US v Wong Kim Ark, they take the EXACT OPPOSITE approach with their pet case, Minor v. Happersett.
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
Still, they insist that those two sentence of side commentary in Minor are "binding precedent," although they are completely unsupported by any authority or argument whatsoever, although they are completely irrelevant to resolving the case, and their conclusion is not explicitly stated in the final statement.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
It is 100% clear to any honest person that this is a thoroughly dishonest approach to the two cases.
Or to put it another way, it is simply a way of LYING about what these cases said.
The truth is that Minor had virtually nothing to say on the subject, and US v Wong Kim Ark handed down an absolutely clear precedent that natural born citizenship does not require citizen parents for persons born on US soil.
All of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course birthers do, every day, since that is the only way they can possibly try to maintain the fantasy.
Of course, the entire case is available online for you to read. Both the majority and minority opinions are informative, although in my opinion, having read so much of the underlying history at this point, the majority opinion is on solid ground, and the minority opinion mostly is not.
My opinion is that the Court got it right on this one. They don't on every decision, but this one is in line with our previous history and law.
The minority opinion recognized that the majority's ruling meant that Wong Kim Ark would be eligible to run for President.
You wrote “President of Texas” so I assumed you meant “President of the Independent Republic of Texas” ... but only as a joke or wishful thinking.
Billy is a liar. As an attorney, he falsely advertised his partnership with a retired attorney to solicit clients. In truth, Billy had no professional relationship with the retired attorney. This isn’t an allegation. Billy stipulated to this when he was suspended for two years on April 4, 1998.
Billy aka William Bryan (Fogbow) was also incompetent, because he failed to do things like show up for court four times, a failure which resulted in sanctions for him and his clients. The case was dismissed. To quote from his page on the California state bar:
“He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep his clients reasonably informed about developments in a case, communicate, return files, pay sanctions and obey court orders.”
Despite the fact that Billy admitted that he performed incompetently, didn’t do his job or comply with court orders, he didn’t reform his ways during his two year suspension.
On January 15, 2000, Billy was given a new two year suspension, for failing to comply with eight separate conditions of his 1998 probation, one of which was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
And this guy is writing complaints against Orly Taitz! This guy! He’s a screw-up.”
But Billy’s efforts go much further: he registered an email address in Kenya for Sarah Obama, and he used it to contact Orly Taitz and volunteer to come to the United States in order to testify if Orly would send him money and a plane ticket. As Billy laughingly notes in his post as Fogbow Foggy, “...is that wire fraud? Heh, heh.”
No wonder the California State Bar wanted him to take an ethics class and the MPRE!”
http://www.screedofmomus.info/2012/06/stop-william-l-bryan.html
As a result of his incompetence and total lack of ethical restraint, Billy aka William Bryan Fogbow) can’t practice law.
He’s on record as lying about his professional association with another attorney, and he’s admitted to failing to perform legal services competently, or as I like to re-term it, performing his job as an attorney incompetently.
He’s a vindictive individual, and he made quite a name for himself mocking the conservative right and libertarians behind anonymity.
And so it is that today, a graduate of Georgetown and law school at USC can’t get employment as an attorney because he’s suspended in California. Instead, he’s a...a...florist...with a law degree.
http://www.screedofmomus.info/2012/06/stop-william-l-bryan.html
William Bryan aka Foggy failed as attorney and as a Florist.
“Flower shop died in the recession” Bill Bryan
http://www.technibble.com/forums/showthread.php?p=359868#post359868
I’m really pleased to see you can use the internet to research someone named William Bryan.
You must consider it unfortunate that you can’t seem to use it to find any evidence that would actually support your stupid birther claims.
You know. Evidence? That would support your bogus claims?
Wondering if the citizens of North Carolina know William Bryan’s mental history and losing his license to practice law.
It seems the Bryan duo is advertising being financial retirement planning experts.
Its very scary this psychological nutcase can get his slimy hands on our seniors money.
http://www.chicksbuildingnesteggs.com/who-we-are/
No, your three classes does not explain the difference between a “citizen” who is eligible for the office of Senator and Representative, and a “natural born” citizen eligible for the office of President, as the Constitution describes.
the two terms are not synonymous, and you have equated the two as equal.
A citizen is any of the three rypes mentioned in the Constitution. And we have had natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and citizens at the time of the adoption as Senators. It is ridiculous to say that a Senator must be a fourth category of citizen- just a citizen.
False choice again. You REALLY WANT it to be a stark demarcation between one choice and the other, but reality often does not work that way. You are invoking an arguing technique called "Reductio ad absurdum " and you are being dishonest about the absurd part.
If I thought you honestly wanted an answer, I would detail for you the timeline of what happened and why. But I think you aren't interested in actually understanding the issue, I think you simply want a certain outcome and you want to mock anyone who disputes it.
Isn't that about it?
Okay, whatever you say...
And this is your attempt to be dismissive. Your technique of debate is a form I call "monkey logic" because it is a series of emotionally driven fallacies, without concern for actual facts or the use of reason. The idea is to screech and beat your chest so that the other monkeys will think you've won.
It's a good technique if you are arguing with monkeys, or people who are no smarter than that.
The problem with this theory is that it presupposes the Chief justice is ignorant and uninformed regarding his legal understanding of the issue. This is just another straw you attempt to grasp to make the reality go away. He says you're wrong. GET. OVER. IT.
You make up for in verbiage what you lack in content.
The Citizenship Act gives citizenship to anyone born outside the USA to either citizen Father or Mother. It does not specifically mention nor address NBC.
The Cable act made it possible for women to transfer citizenship. It is germane to citizenship. To those who argue that "citizenship" and "natural born citizenship" are the same thing, it is germane. To those of us who argue that they are not the exact same thing, it is not germane.
But again, who are we arguing with?
The courts will brush aside any argument. If the shadow of an American fell across someone, the courts would rule them eligible. It is an article with no useful purpose at this point.
And was this law in effect in 1787? Would the people for whom this law operates have been considered "natural citizens" prior to this law? How about a little honesty?
Says the delusional "Legend in his Own mind" Jeffery who bears a striking resemblance in style and tone to the kook cited above.
If the blind should lead the blind, they should all wind up in the ditch.
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.