Posted on 07/19/2023 6:26:48 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
You misspelled "opinion."
So what did they do before the 14th amendment came along and *TAUGHT US WHAT THE FRAMERS MEANT* when they said "natural born citizen"?
Or does the thing reach back in time to 1776? Because that's what i'm hearing from you guys.
And while we are at it, the 14th amendment was not ratified according to constitutional law. It was ratified by puppet governments with bayonets at their back controlled by Washington DC. That is *NOT* how the constitutional amendment process is supposed to work. That is how dictatorships work.
Using that example, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but I don't think they were citizens.
No, it is only people like you, who are mentally ill, who continue to disregard WKA, since it says that you are wrong. Only mentally ill people, like trannies and flat-earthers, get silly ideas into their head, and then defy common-sense answers that prove them wrong.
I wish that you were capable of stepping back from yourself, and seeing what a ninny you are. But - mental illness prevents that.
“Using that example, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but I don’t think they were citizens”
Saddam was born in Iraq, Osama was born in Saudi Arabia.
The phrase in question was “born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
What are you trying to say?
People like Diogenes and Kerchner and other two-citizen parent birthers, are mentally ill. I think that that maybe they are a subset of what are called “vexatious litigants”, about which much is written in law journals and psychiatric journals. Once they get a notion in their head, like the earth is flat, or sovereign citizens, for example, it is well-nigh impossible to get them to see reason. Here, with this issue, silly little clumps of people have elevated a book on International Law, to a status above the Constitution. Even though its author, Vattel, clearly stated that some countries, like England, bestowed citizenship by place of birth.
Go figure. They are the equivalents of wokesters, who are convinced that life in the hood sucks because of 1619, not because of bad choices and high illegitimate birth rates.
This may also be a result of some offshoot of autism - because people on the autism spectrum, like Great Thunberg, get an idea in their head, and there is not turning them away from it, no matter how much contrary information they receive.
I am kind of sadistic, and I enjoy watching them run around like monkeys, spewing all kinds of silly quasi-legal nonsense and babble. My BFF did a website to address their craziness:
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/
I have to admit, it is a hilarious website.
Of course not; neither of them were born or naturalized in the United States.
Also, needless to say, questions of jurisdiction involving military affairs and operations in a state of war within foreign lands are QUITE different from the matter of jurisdiction in the civil sense; I doubt Jim Noble was talking about the former, so the mention of Hussein and Bin Laden are a complete non sequitur.
So what did they do before the 14th amendment came along and *TAUGHT US WHAT THE FRAMERS MEANT* when they said "natural born citizen"? Or does the thing reach back in time to 1776? Because that's what i'm hearing from you guys.
Given that those who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were concerned that the matter of birthright citizenship for those subject to US jurisdiction might become rescinded by a future act of Congress, there was incentive to ensure that the matter of citizenship (especially birthright citizenship) received Constitutional protection, free from potential legislative clawbacks in the future. See post 36 for some of the discussion Congress had on the matter (which is actually worth reading).
That the legal system has not deigned to embrace it signifies nothing to me.
This is a decidedly unserious take, akin to saying "I'm going to ignore all prior jurisprudence and legal commentary on the issue and use my own term".
It is a plain and simple description that gets the point across, and indeed, is far clearer in purpose from having left off the "born" part of it. All people are "born" so it is just redundant.
It distinguishes those who are citizens by birth from those who are naturalized after-birth. To use your term, both the naturalized and those who are citizens by birth are "natural citizens"; "natural-born" is simply the term that has taken hold over the past centuries to designate those who are citizens by birth instead of those who are citizens by naturalization. It's not that difficult.
To the contrary. Without the "natural law" foundation for our independence, we are "subjects", not "citizens."
We're all subjects of God. But the matter of being a subject versus being a citizen is a function of the fact that we do not have a monarchy, where as the English did (which, in practical terms, there is no fundamental difference between being a 'subject' versus being a 'citizen' in the world of English Common Law, as the British monarchy is largely ceremonial by this point).
But again, you're trying to mix the subject of citizenship (a matter purely of positive law) with the intrinsic properties of human nature (which is a question of natural law, which are proper to all people regardless of citizenship status). It's the proverbial mixing of metaphors.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy of false choice? You are flirting with it very closely here, but in this particular case I assert he was a naturalized citizen, naturalized en masse by the 14th amendment.
Given that Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 (five years after the 14th Amendment was deemed adopted and ratified), that's quite an impressive feat. But seriously, he wasn't: you can't "naturalize" someone who does not yet exist.
You cannot pass a law to make someone a natural citizen. You can only naturalize them.
It falls within the sole purview of Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) to determine the "uniform Rule of Naturalization". However, the matter of birthright citizenship, being enshrined within the Constitution, is no longer subject to Congressional change. It would take another Constitutional amendment to alter that understanding.
They were quite explicit in ommitting the words "natural born". We cannot believe this is an accident.
Based on what? For what reason do you insist that the Court in Wong Kim Ark held that there was a distinction between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen by birth"?
Because If they believed as you claim, they would have just said so. That they refrained from making that specific declaration indicates that they didn't consider it appropriate.
Reading through the Court's opinion makes it blindingly clear that majority considered Wong Kim Ark a natural-born (or native-born) citizen.
It is incumbent upon you to prove that there is an actual distinction (insofar as American Constitutional jurisprudence is concerned) between a "citizen by birth" and a "natural-born citizen".
There’s no need to attack DiogenesLamp’s character.
The arguments will stand and fall on their merits.
I remember you now. You are that kook that works with "tee hee" Squeeky Fromme. (She's a nut.)
Even though its author, Vattel, clearly stated that some countries, like England, bestowed citizenship by place of birth.
It may have escaped your attention, but we are not England and our laws deviated greatly from the laws they left us with, especially the laws regarding allegiance. You see, in our legal foundation, people have a right to independence. They have a right to throw off allegiance.
"Subjects" do not have such a right.
They are the equivalents of wokesters, who are convinced that life in the hood sucks because of 1619, not because of bad choices and high illegitimate birth rates.
For a lawyer, your ability to reason sucks.
What he USED, as I pointed out, were two terms that need no translation: “naturels” and “indigenes”. Neither is the legal term “Natural Born Citizen”, which was synonymous with “Natural Born Subject” - to the point there were used interchangeably in colonial times:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
No, the arguments will not stand or fall on their merits. Because this is not really a legal question with him - it is a psychiatric obsession and delusion. You would have better luck trying to convince a sovereign citizen that the fringe on the courtroom flag is irrelevant, which is to say that you will have no luck whatsoever. You will come to understand this the more that you interact with him. No matter how cogent or rational your arguments, or how germane your legal cites, you will simply be run around in a circle with him. He will deconstruct any language down to the point of absurdity, and he will not budge.
What you are dealing with is a psychiatric problem, and my approach to delusional people has always been to tell them straight to their face that they are crazy and delusional. Just like telling an alcoholic that they are a drunk, or a dope-fiend that they are a drug addict. Most of the time, that approach does not work any more than any other approach, but you have a better chance than you do just playing along with their assorted delusions.
Here is you some literature that you may find useful:
“Germany: The Litigant’s Delusion and Paranoia Querulans
The first recorded reference to excessive involvement with the legal system was found in Aristophanes’ play, The Wasps. Written in 422 BCE, the play depicted the statesman Philocleon who was labeled a “trialophile” because he was addicted to court proceedings. This character would do anything to serve on a jury because he enjoyed passing judgment. In Aristophanes’ original text, Philocleon recognized the power given to him by jury service and proudly exclaimed, “(t)he hand of power is on me.”6 In subsequent translations of this passage from The Wasps, Philocleon declared a desire to “go with you to the law-court and do all the harm I can.”7 The play satirized the political climate of ancient Athens, which Aristophanes believed was responsible for producing trialophiles.8
In 1668, French playwright Racine wrote and produced The Litigants,9 which was based on Aristophanes’ work. Racine specifically acknowledged the pleasure he received in reading The Wasps and how it was the model for his own play. In Racine’s rendition of the story, the main character was overly eager to file lawsuits rather than to serve on juries. Racine depicted his main protagonist’s trialophilia as an individual character flaw rather than a product of the political climate, a portrayal that represents an approximation of how future scholars would conceptualize persistent and pathological litigation.
German psychiatrist Johann Ludwig Casper10 would later refer to trialophilia as Querulantenwahn, which translates as “litigant’s delusion.” Casper asserted that all human beings strongly resent real or imagined threats to their basic rights, leading them to take legal action to protect their rights when necessary. When these individuals are not granted the rights they desire or are otherwise displeased with the outcome of legal proceedings, they become fixated on attaining justice. THIS FIXATION BEGINS A DOWNWARD SPIRAL THAT EVENTUALLY RESULTS IN A FULL-BLOWN DELUSIONAL DISORDER. German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing4 added to Casper’s definition by classifying these delusions as a kind of persecutory delusion. These classifications laid the foundation for subsequent German psychiatrists to study and debate the concept of hyperlitigious behavior for the next half century.
Debates followed about whether litigant’s delusion should be classified as a subtype of paranoid or persecutory delusion, as a freestanding disorder, or as a variant of another psychological illness. When German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin11 wrote Psychiatrie, he departed from previous editions of the text that grouped litigant’s delusion with paranoia and persecutory delusions. In the eighth edition, Kraepelin noted what he considered to be key etiological differences between paranoia and delusional disorders and litigant’s delusion. He asserted that these litigants were driven to act by authentic legal injustices they experienced rather than by delusional beliefs. Therefore, the querulants’ difficulties were psychogenic, suggesting psychological origins. Paranoia, by contrast, involved imagined events and was considered a constitutional disorder, which suggested physical origins.
Attributing hyperlitigious behavior to psychological origins also implied that it could be treated and managed by psychologists and psychiatrists. This change was widely accepted, and scholars began to explore new factors related to these individuals and behaviors. Hyperlitigious behavior still receives some attention in both the legal and psychological literature.12”
There is a lot more at this link, and it is a fascinating topic: https://jaapl.org/content/45/1/62
I have played with two-citizen parent birthers, too, and it can be entertaining, much like watching monkeys as a zoo pick fleas off each other and eat boogers - as long as you realize that you are dealing with somebody whose brain doesn’t work right, and who does not really live in the Real Universe.
Good luck! Let me know when you get the real picture of what is going on.
I love your drafted decision, “Penny”, and your screen name, too.
My usual argument about this goes as follows:
Both of my grandfathers were born in the US to alien parents (1893 and 1895). When they were registered for the draft in 1917, their draft cards had 3 (and only 3) check boxes for citizen status: 1) Natural born; 2) Naturalized; and 3) Alien. Note that these categories were provided by the War Department, not by the registrants. Both grandfathers were designated “Natural born”.
Now, what if the War Department was wrong? Neither man ever naturalized, so they must have been aliens. So, therefore, when my father was born in 1923 to an alien father (and mother, the same arguments apply to my grandmothers), and since he never naturalized, he was an alien, and so am I.
Obviously, an absurd result.
I was taught civics in 11th grade by a right wing patriot. We learned that “born here” = “natural born”. You are also right that this is all about Obama.
Nice post.
But clearly they were subject to our laws. This shows the error in using that standard to declare "jurisdiction."
Given that those who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were concerned that the matter of birthright citizenship for those subject to US jurisdiction might become rescinded by a future act of Congress, there was incentive to ensure that the matter of citizenship (especially birthright citizenship) received Constitutional protection, free from potential legislative clawbacks in the future.
None of that addresses an intent to rewrite "natural born citizen" so that people born with foreign allegiance could be president.
This is a decidedly unserious take, akin to saying "I'm going to ignore all prior jurisprudence and legal commentary on the issue and use my own term".
Well I am glad you understand me. Yes, it is exactly akin to saying "I'm going to ignore all prior jurisprudence and legal commentary on the issue," and look at primary sources rather than just take someone else's word for something.
Can you not think for yourself, or do you have to wait until a judge gives you your opinion?
My observations is that so many judges are idiots that it becomes difficult to tell which ones are smart.
It distinguishes those who are citizens by birth from those who are naturalized after-birth.
Not so. Those "citizens at birth", such as from the Cable Act, or the Women's citizenship act of 1934, or the Naturalization act of 1952, are all "naturalized" citizens, with the naturalization to occur "at birth."
The Supreme court even refers to this sort of "naturalization en masse" in their Wong Kim Ark ruling, and they flat out state this is a naturalization power of congress. I can find the quote for you if you insist.
Natural citizens do not require laws and do not have to abide by conditions to retain their citizenship.
Anybody who is made a citizen "at birth" by a man made law, and anyone who has to meet requirements to retain citizenship, is *NOT* a natural citizen.
being a subject versus being a citizen is a function of the fact that we do not have a monarchy, where as the English did (which, in practical terms, there is no fundamental difference between being a 'subject' versus being a 'citizen' in the world of English Common Law,
Not true. Look up "Citizen" in Blackstone. I believe I found it five times when I did a search. Then look up "Subject." "Citizen" in English law means "dweller in a city." It does not mean someone who owes allegiance to a country. The 1770 understanding of the words are not even analogous.
But again, you're trying to mix the subject of citizenship (a matter purely of positive law)
Inherent natural law. Look up what Aristotle (and so many others) had to say on the subject.
But seriously, he wasn't: you can't "naturalize" someone who does not yet exist.
Well the law that naturalized Mario Bellei (Rogers v Bellei) was created before he existed. It still naturalized him. So yes, you can naturalize people by laws written before they are born.
It falls within the sole purview of Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) to determine the "uniform Rule of Naturalization".
I have to admit, that made me laugh.
However, the matter of birthright citizenship, being enshrined within the Constitution, is no longer subject to Congressional change.
When God gives you a right, it is a natural right. When congress gives you a right, it's a whim of congress. Congress cannot redefine the terms used in the constitution. Even if they amend it, they cannot make already written words mean something different than what they meant when they were first written.
They can change the requirements for the presidency through the amendment process, but they cannot redefine the meaning of those original requirements.
Based on what? For what reason do you insist that the Court in Wong Kim Ark held that there was a distinction between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen by birth"?
By omitting the usage of the more certain term. Remember, this is the same court that gave us "Separate but Equal."
Why is it so hard to believe that they would distinguish one citizen from another, when that is *EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID IN PLESSY V FERGUSON.*
Reading through the Court's opinion makes it blindingly clear that majority considered Wong Kim Ark a natural-born (or native-born) citizen.
Yeah? Where did they write "Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen"?
You complained about me leaving off the "born", why don't you complain about the Wong court leaving off the "natural-born"?
It is incumbent upon you to prove that there is an actual distinction (insofar as American Constitutional jurisprudence is concerned) between a "citizen by birth" and a "natural-born citizen".
Don't mind if I do. It might take me awhile, because you seem pretty intent on believing what you want to believe, but I tend to persevere. I've probably got more evidence than you want to see.
How about you start by looking up "Citizen" in Blackstone?
I think we've discussed this point previously. How many times do you see "Citizen" used before 1776, and how many times do you see "Subject" used after 1776?
shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.
When we try this tactic of "shall be deemed" on a man in a dress, we call him a "tranny."
"Shall be deemed" means "We will pretend."
You do know the difference between pretending and reality?
Thanks! Yes, this is all pretty simple, but once some people get an idea in their head, there is no disabusing them of the notion. It is like their brain has a door in, but no door out, from which to chunk bad information. They dwell in absurdity, just like you said.
I do not disregard Wong Kim Ark. I simply don't think it goes so far as *YOU* think.
Now if they had declared Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural born" citizen, while his parents (and he himself) still owed allegiance to China, then I would say the court was bonkers, but clearly Wong Kim Ark is a 14th amendment citizen.
Not a natural citizen.
So while I have you promoting the wisdom of the Wong Court, I was wondering if you would tell me your opinion of how they did in Plessy v Ferguson?
:)
Well if you are saying I don't give a sh*t what the High Priests of legaldom declare on the matter, than you are right, unless of course they happened to be members of the Constitutional convention or the Ratifying convention as John Marshall was.
Chief Justice John Marshall was right in the thick of Constitutional ratification and he did love himself some Emmerick Vattel! Cited it and quoted it a LOT!
What you are dealing with is a psychiatric problem,...
I know, and I hope you get better.
Well thank you, but I don't mind so much because I usually regard that as a signal that they can't beat back my arguments.
The arguments will stand and fall on their merits.
And this is exactly the rationality we should all have. I admire people who are not afraid to engage in a contest of ideas.
You said, “Well if you are saying I don’t give a sh*t what the High Priests of legaldom [aka SCOTUS]declare on the matter, than you are right, unless of course they happened to be members of the Constitutional convention or the Ratifying convention as John Marshall was.”
That is exactly what I told UltraSonic 007 - that this is not a legal issue for you, but instead a psychiatric disorder or delusion.
Sane people do not think like you do. Sane people can read the decision, and see what it means. Insane people will babble and drool all over the place.
I suggest you go get into therapy. Get Kerchner and Sharon Rondeau to go, too, and maybe you can all get a group discount rate!
Hardly. Immigration to America was a lot easier back then. I actually don't think we had laws to keep people out back then. I think they started making such laws at the turn of the century to keep the Italians out. :)
I'm pretty sure the Wong court would say that establishing legal residence is the prime component. Wong Kim Ark's parents still had allegiance to China, and were not allowed to become American citizens due to a treaty with China forbidding it. But they established a permanent residence and that made their son into a 14th amendment citizen.
If your grandparents established legal residency, then your parents got at least 14th amendment citizenship, and you got natural citizenship.
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.