Posted on 05/05/2010 10:41:27 PM PDT by STARWISE
Am I misunderstanding?? Aren’t both these cases citations based on comments of third parties and not the actual statements of the court??
“NBS and NBC aren’t equivalent. “
In WKA, the court disagreed with you. They use them as equivalents. That is why they used NBS to reveal the original intent of NBC...
Anyone who disagrees can read the first few pages here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
It is VERY clear that the court equates the two.
“There was no assumption of being a citizen at birth for children of aliens.”
Again, the court disagreed with you.
“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.
In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.”
“No he doesn’t.”
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
No, the first is a citation, the other (“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”) is not.
And you've been told before that both his parents were US citizens at the time of Steinkauler's birth and he was born inside the United States. The Supreme Court give good background on subjects when they describe them as native born when they are also natural born citizen as I said in the above post to you. To summarize again, his parents were US citizens when he was born and he was born in the US of A, and which makes Steinkauler a natural born citizen under the de Vattel definition which is the intent and meaning behind US Constitution natural born citizen clause.
Again here, the Supreme Court in their opinion gave a good background of Miss Elg which you missed in your post. Ms. Elg was born inside the United States to parents at the time who were US citizens that makes her a natural born citizen, which it says in their holdings of that 1939 Supreme Court case. And again, Ms. Elg falls under the De Vattel definition of a natural born citizen.
All natural born citizens are native born, BUT not all native born are natural born citizens. The Supreme Court does not mix and match when the subject is ONLY a native born as they did in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case.
Yes, I know that - and I also know they MIX native born with running for President.
You said the SCOTUS has NEVER mixed the terms, but they HAVE. If there was a distinction, and if the SCOTUS is precise in their writing - which I think they are - then under your theory of NBC, they should write he was a natural born citizen and THUS eligible, rather than native born and eligible.
troll
And what else have I said to you? They give good backgrounds on the subject so not to confuse. So if SCOTUS calls a native born who is also a natural born they ensure the learned reader understands that he is also a natural born.
They however, will never call a person who is ONLY A NATIVE BORN a natural born citizen. They NEVER mixed and match with Wong Kim Ark. They called him ONLY a native born in the facts of the case and in the holdings of the case. In all of the dictum in between of the Supreme Court opinion they never refer to Wong Kim Ark, and they certainly never called him a natural born citizen. There was no mixing native born citizen with natural born citizen.
I'm supposed to hunt for something that supports your claim?? Please, cite anything you think uses these terms as directly equivalent and then I'll prove how you're wrong.
Again, the court disagreed with you.
Not to the point of declaring WKA to be a natural born citizen (which is acknowledged by Ankeny). The WKA dicta leaves out a lot of inconvenient facts in these citations, but they clearly avoid declaring anyone to be a natural born citizen.
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, ...
This isn't talking about WKA or the effect of the court's decision on WKA. It's talking in broader terms of "everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances," to which we already know that the 14th amendment does respect a few circumstances that exclude native born persons from having at birth citizenship. It also mentions 'the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country,' which are also not the cirumstances that were applied to WKA, whose parents were, by necessity, deemed permanent residents in order for their child to be a 14th amendment citizen of the United States. Again, the dissent doesn't simply declare WKA not to be a natural born citizen, but not to be a citizen by either birth or naturalization.
Woohoo, we have a new troll to play with, a well known one too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=smrstrauss&src=IE-SearchBox&Form=IE8SRC
The first citation was based on a quote by an attorney general and the second was based on a quote from a secretary of state.
"The court in Perkins v Elg approvingly cites the AG:
"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship."
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.
24 Why isn't Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn't Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
Apparently smrstrauss trolls various forums singing the same tune for 0thugga.
Hireling.
So any child, born of two french parents, here on vacation and never returning after the birth, can become president.
Under our Constitution?
LOL
Please exercise proper manners when addressing the Marxist’s next SCOTUS nominee...lol.
LOL LOL!!!!!!
Oh yea a hireling... for sure.
smrstrauss said,in October 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Why does Obama have to prove that he is a citizen?
Has any other president had to prove that he was born in the USA?
We hear some claims that he was not born in the USA, but there are also claims that he is a socialist. One site claims that he is mainly of Arab decent on his father’s side, and still another one claims that his mother was Jewish.
If, indeed, it were proven that Obama were not born in the USA then there would be a valid issue of whether he could be president.
But the proof does not have to come from requiring Obama to prove that he is a citizen. It must come from the people who claim that he is NOT a citizen. And they have no evidence.
No, the assertion that there is an audio tape of someone who claims to be his paternal grandmother and claims to have attended his birth when his mother was in Kenya is NOT evidence? How do you know from a tape that it is really his grandmother?
Eight days left until the election. If there is real evidence, present it. Otherwise, stop blowing smoke.
http://www.bloggernews.net/118355
smrstrauss :
Date: October 31, 2008
It IS all crap. He was born in Hawaii. The only allegation that he was born in Kenya is from one man, Philip Berg, who says that he has a tape of the grandmother saying that she had attended his birth in Kenya. But Berg has never played the tape to anyone. (And he has no other evidence, such as Kenyan documents.)
And the latest news is that the Hawaii officials have now confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is on file in Hawaii.
Quote:
State declares Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is genuine
By Associated Press
6:43 PM EDT, October 31, 2008
HONOLULU (AP) _ State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Friday, October 31, 2008 – 11:51 AM HAST (That means Hawaii/Aleutian Standard Time)
Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate confirmed
Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.
Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.
End quote:
These two versions of the same report seem clear enough. The birth certificate is on file in Hawaii and it is valid.
However, the opponents of Obama simply will not give up. I have seen one Web comment that went along these lines: “It could have been a valid Kenyan birth certificate on file in Hawaii that the Hawaii official was talking about.”
Laughable, of course, why would a Kenyan birth certificate be filed in Hawaii?
http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=2116
There are so many, he’s been blowing Obongo since 2008. I can see him doing it to make sure he got elected, but if it’s anon-issue, why is he still doing it? hmmmmmmm
A big time hireling and copious kool-aid drinking Obot poster.
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.