Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Abd al-Rahiim
You pitiful creep, this is not an I lose you win/I win you lose issue. This is about the Constitution, not your malignant narcissistic messiah. The issue is not on Barry Soetoro's citizenship, he may or may not be an American citizen, legally. The issue is whether the bastard is a natural born citizen. And you should have read what I offered to you before spittling off into a diversion.

[[ Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in attempt to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine in this country at the expense of rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.

NOTE: The Wong Kim Ark ruling left undisturbed the uniform judicial doctrine since 1885 that said when residence is permanent the child born here of permanent residents should be considered a citizen of the United States. Although not a constitutional controversy under the words or interpretation the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment provided, current federal judicial understanding could be said unsettled under Wong Kim Ark in terms of temporary or illegal residents. [[ http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html ]]

1,165 posted on 08/07/2009 6:25:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies ]


To: MHGinTN
Name-calling really strengthens your argument </sarcasm>

I did read what you offered me, and it is clear that you did not understand much of what you quoted from WhiskeyX.

I never said that the phrase "natural born" in Article II is without meaning. Why do you think I quoted those portions of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett that specifically addressed that phrase?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too, bud. You can either accept your "For thousands of years,..." quote from WhiskeyX, or you can accept your Federalist Blog rant against English common law, but you can't take both. It's plainly obvious to anyone who is literate in our language that the Constitution does not define "natural born." Since that is the case, the two cases I quoted from analyzed English common law and clarified the meaning of "natural born."

Clearly, you do not like their conclusions. That is fine. Like the author from the Federalist Blog, you are welcome to say that United States v. Wong Kim Ark is "as worthless as a three-dollar bill." You are also welcome to ignore that "natural born" has been previously clarified by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Minor, and that it makes plain that Obama is a "natural born citizen," but it only shows how deceived you have been. My sincerest condolences.

1,166 posted on 08/07/2009 7:14:30 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson