Posted on 07/26/2024 7:59:03 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
So would a lot of modern legal pointy heads, but they are just wrong.
The idea that the Plessy court would not have a "separate but equal" view of Wong Kim Ark is foolish.
Yes, the very court that defined having two different classes of citizen, would have no trouble seeing two different classes of citizen with Wong.
I think this is true of people in 1789 and for some past eras in our country's history, but modern America is full of idiots and brainwashed people.
You are out of sequence.
His “of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty” statement was in 1866 but his “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” came in March 1868. After Congress had debated the 14th Amendment and passed it on to the states for ratification. And after 17 states had already ratified it.
Obviously he changed his mind.
Is a natural born citizen a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction?
Is a native born citizen a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction?
None of the facts changed. There is no reason to believe his mind changed, only to believe he didn't wish to add the qualifier, probably because it was too long and because it only affected a tiny minority of people.
People often trade brevity for accuracy in their public statements.
If you read his statements in the debates on the 14th amendment, he says several things that clarify his point, and which indicate he *DID NOT* change his mind about "owing allegiance to no other sovereignty."
They are tedious to find because the debate on the 14th is long and there is no easy way to go straight to them.
I have looked them up on several occasions, and it is always a slog to search through to find the exact statement, but it can be done. I've posted them several times in the past.
A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen through no recourse to any man made law. Natural citizens are made by God, not men.
Is a native born citizen a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction?
I would assume so.
Look, if this gets complicated, remember the 14th was intended to give citizenship to people who were born here from slaves. (where's that English common law when you need it to apply to slaves?)
Their focus was entirely on giving slaves citizenship, and I think few of them gave much thought as to how their screwy verbiage would be applied to illegal aliens.
In any case, "natural born citizens" didn't need the 14th amendment to be a citizen. Therefore, anyone who does, isn't a natural citizen, they are a man made "naturalized" citizen.
And yes, the debate on the 14th asserts the 14th "naturalizes" the children of slaves born here.
You have accused me of not responding to your “arguments”, and this is a perfect example of why. First, because you make no valid arguments, and second, you are not amenable to reason, and no matter what anybody tells you, you ain’t gonna change your mind.
The issue you raised is the same one raised in Ankeny, and a Judge and an appeals court, explained why the Birther argument was nothing more than “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions.” In other words, Birthers just made up a lot of crap. If you ain’t gonna listen to a judge, and an appeals court, and numerous ones at that, then nothing that I say to you, and nothing that anyone else says to you, is going to do anything but go in one ear and out the other.
You are nothing but a form of Sovereign Citizen. You get stopped for no tags, license or insurance, and you argue with the cops for 30 minutes, and you show them SCOTUS cases, and the UCC code, and a bunch of other quasi-legal crap. You get pulled from the car and arrested. You go to Court and the judge tells you, “Nope, you gotta have tags, a driver’s licence and insurance to drive a car.” You appeal, and you lose again - but you just keep on driving without a licence, and telling others that they don’t gotta have no stinkin’ driver’s licence, either!
That is you, and you have been doing it for 16 years, and you keep repeating the same drivel over and over again, as if repetition will make it true. I have no doubt but that, 16 years from now, you will still be doing the same thing. And you will never win the first case in court. What is at play here, is not the LAW, but your mental illness.
I suggest that maybe, over the next 16 years, that you sign up for online law school. In California, that is enough to sit for the bar. It might take several years of doing it part-time, at night, and in four or five years, you should be able to pass the classes.
Then, if you still believe your foolishness, you can actually go to court, for yourself! But what I think will happen, as you come to understand the legal process, is that you will realize what a nincompoop you have been, and in the process your mental health issues will have begun to abate. Or not. But at least you will have a law licence to show for your time!
There is discussion, which this board is dedicated to, at an adult level.
Then there is name-calling, which is the middle-school version of discussion, which is what you are doing.
If you insist on doing that, take it to http://www.thefogbow.com
The writers of the 1952 Immigration Act knew of the terms of precedents (such as Minor v. Happersett of 1874 and Wong Kim Ark of 1898, and others you cite).
With that knowledge, in 1952 they crafted their language to ensure that recipients of Student Visas had status of "non-immigrants" and "aliens" relative to the US, as they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction. (As evidence, these terms appear on immigration service documents in the 1950's and early 1960's).
In contrast, in order to accept your argument, you would have to verify that the writers of the 1952 act intended for children of Student Visa recipients to be considered as US citizens who were eligible for the US presidency.
Can you supply any specific evidence of that intent?
Where is your logic in that?
This is simple. Make your arguments from Original Intent and the founding era, and I will listen.
Make your arguments about pompous ignorant modern judges, and I will not pay the slightest attention to it.
My God Woman! Think for *YOURSELF*! Don't leave it to judges to think for you.
You are nothing but a form of Sovereign Citizen.
I wonder if you can make a post without including that little bit of derogatory smear.
We all saw it the first six or seven times you said it, and you won't get any more traction out of it with repetition.
Aha! We have you now!
That flag in the courtroom HAS A YELLOW FRINGE! /s
"The rationale behind the many cases which have held that ineligible candidates may not appear on the ballot is that the election process is run at great public expense and for a significant public purpose.
Were elections officials required to place on the ballot the names of ineligible candidates, who are simply out to attract public attention to themselves or to the cause they advocate, the serious business of electing public officials would be jeopardized.
In addition to candidates who are under-age, various political parties might well nominate persons who are not natural-born American citizens, which is also forbidden by Article II of the United States Constitution.
A leftist political group might well attempt to place on the ballot for President Chairman Mao Tse-tung or Premier Fidel Castro. A Catholic party, seeking publicity for a campaign against birth control, might well ask the Secretary of State to certify Pope Paul VI as its presidential candidate.
Regardless of the personal merits of such candidates, their candidacies would be essentially frivolous.
Their presence on the ballot would be a fraud upon the body politic, and would make a mockery of democratic elections."
Cleaver v. Jordan, 393 U.S. 810
As cited in Amicus Brief by Derek T. Mueller, Anderson v. Trump, 2023
US Supreme Court denied certiorari 10/7/1968
“This is simple. Make your arguments from Original Intent and the founding era, and I will listen.”
In other words, you want me to PRETEND that Wong Kim Ark does not exist, so you can PRETEND to be smart. Uh, no.
If it is fantasy and pretence that you want, I have a suggestion! Go hire you a prostitute, and tell her that you will pay her for an hour of her time to help you pretend that you are a great legal scholar! You can even write out a script for her to follow! Here is how I would start the script!
“Oh, these mean old judges and courts just don’t have the guts to recognize that Eddy Vattel was the true source of what it means to be a natural-born citizen in the United States! Oh, Thank God that we have true Patriots like you and the other Birthers to set them straight! Of course, it is obvious that Obama and Harris can not be true Presidents, and I know how much you suffered to bring this message to America!” People laughing at you, and calling you bad names, and implying that turnips have more brains than you! But you have withstood the swings and arrows, I mean slings and arrows (did somebody actually shoot you in the arm with an arrow???) Anyway, you, you brave and noble man, you - you stood fast and did not give in no matter how many times the courts told you to go pound sand!”
You can adapt the script as necessary. An hour should cost you around $100.
Wong Kim Ark is not in conflict with my position. Wong is a "citizen", not a "natural born" citizen.
In other words, to argue intelligently, you stick with "first principles." (That's a physics term.)
You lawyers have a similar concept, but I can't think of how it's worded at the moment, but the closest thing I can think is "best evidence" or "primary evidence."
All your court rulings are second hand or third hand opinions based upon what people far removed from the era *thought* happened.
They do not deal with facts such as William Rawle deliberately blowing smoke into the discussion with his attempts to free the slaves by claiming their birth on the soil made them "citizens." (which it obviously didn't.)
You start with John Jay, Jefferson, Washington, and the convention delegates regarding what *THEY* understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
What people think 70 or 100 years later does not change what was the reality and intent in 1787.
And don't forget the convention was held in Philadelphia, and if there is any place in the nation that should have known what was their intent, it should be the Philadelphia legal community.
“Wong is a “citizen”, not a “natural-born” citizen.”
Again, Birthers have made this argument many times, and have lost every time. See Ankeny, for example. Which is NOT really my point.
My point is, why would you expect anyone to want to respond to you, or debate you, when all you do is try to make the same point, that has already been decided?
Again, you are a Sovereign Citizen, and the court keeps telling you that you have to get a driver’s license, and you lose each time you go to Court. But you want to go back to 1789, and argue people don’t need driver’s licenses. Why??? Judges told you that you do, and explained it to you, several times over the past few years.
Why shouldn’t people just think that you are some kind of nut, and refuse to respond to your arguments, pretty much as I do. What did I say earlier -
“First, because you make no valid arguments, and second, you are not amenable to reason, and no matter what anybody tells you, you ain’t gonna change your mind.”
Dude, you have mental issues, and you need to get help. Here is the same guy I showed you earlier, doing the same thing again. He is you, and you are him -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WtNcUk67d0
What do you mean "lost"? You mean the arrogant idiot courts didn't bother to look at it?
You have reverence for the courts. I and many like me consider them disgusting, pompous, arrogant, and intent on turning the fallacies of "argumentum ad vericundiam" and argumentum ad antiquitam into virtues.
They are more concerned with their procedures than they are with correct results.
Modern courts think men are women.
My point is, why would you expect anyone to want to respond to you, or debate you, when all you do is try to make the same point, that has already been decided?
The courts will decide which direction guns will be pointed if people don't agree with them, but this is a very different thing from deciding what is *TRUTH*.
In that regard, the courts have a piss poor track record, and while everyone should acknowledge that whatever idiocy comes out of courts, it will have guns backing it up, but they cannot make the false become true through dictatorial edicts.
Again, you are a Sovereign Citizen,...
Res ipsa loquitur.
Again, GROW UP! Stop looking to "courts" for your understanding, and start looking at actual records and history.
Don't let "courts" think for you. You can think for yourself... I think.
that recipients of Student Visas had status of "non-immigrants" and "aliens" relative to the US, as they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction. (As evidence, these terms appear on immigration service documents in the 1950's and early 1960's).
Your purported "quote” evidences neither link nor citation of source. When you are done playing your game of hide the ball, a discussion may ensue.
As “evidence”, you did not provide your so-called “evidence.” Aliens on a student visa are aliens. What a discovery.
The alleged anonymous “quote” says nothing about children who may be born within the territory of the United States. Presumably a newborn baby is not a recipient of a student visa. To the extent that you assume this could strike down any portion of the U.S. Constitution, you are mistaken.
Your purported “quote” that, “they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction.,” is nonsense. The only aliens in the United States not subject to its jurisdiction, are accredited diplomats and their families, or foreign dignitaries/royalty and their families. You imagine foreign students are immune from U.S. law as are accredited foreign ambassadors. That concept is insane.
In contrast, in order to accept your argument, you would have to verify that the writers of the 1952 act intended for children of Student Visa recipients to be considered as US citizens who were eligible for the US presidency.
Your argument is brain dead. It assumes that the parentage of a child, born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is determinative of birth citizenship status. Only in cases where the child born in the USA enjoys diplomatic immunity via a parent is parentage relevant.
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment] “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....”
Which part of that do you not understand?
In which words of that do you find anything about parents?
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 301
d. "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States": All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: "The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States." Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
As cited in Amicus Brief by Derek T. Mueller, Anderson v. Trump, 2023
You have the case citation backwards, it should be Trump v Anderson. The year 2023 is wrong, it should be 2024. The brief was signed and submitted by Heather Gebelin Hacker, Counsel for Amicus Curiae, dated January 2024. The name is Muller, not Mueller.
Of course, the comment “US Supreme Court denied certiorari 10/7/1968” applies to the case of Cleaver v. Jordan 393 U.S. 810 (1968). A denial of cert says precisely nothing about the merits, or lack thereof.
Trump v. Anderson was decided by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. The obvious reason you do not demonstrate awareness of the year, the citation, or even the existence of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion is that your “knowledge” came from some wingnut website, and you have not read whatever it is you cite.
From the Amicus Brief of Derek T. Muller:
No. 23-719In the Supreme Court of the United States, Donmald J. Trump, Petitioner, v. Norma Anderson, et al., Respondents
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
BRIEF OF PROFESSOR DEREK T. MULLER, AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
At numbered page 4:
ARGUMENTI. States have the power to review the qualifications of presidential candidates.
[...]
A. The Presidential Electors Clause grants states broad power over presidential elections.
At numbered page 6:
B. For more than fifty years, states have determined whether candidates are ineligible and removed ineligible candidates from the presidential ballot.[...]
California excluded Eldridge Cleaver from the ballot in 1968. Cleaver was the 33-year-old nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party.4 He challenged the exclusion in state court, which rejected his challenge.5 Cleaver petitioned for certiorari to this Court. Without comment, the Court rejected the petition. Cleaver v. Jordan, 393 U.S. 810 (1968). A denial of a petition for writ of certiorari says little, if anything, about the merits. But it demonstrates the fact that a state did exclude a candidate from the ballot for failure to meet the qualifications for office, long ago.
4 Associated Press, Eldridge Cleaver Kept Off Ballot, San Clemente Daily Sun-Post, Aug. 22, 1968, at 1; Associated Press, McCarthy, Cleaver Lose Court Fight for California Ballot Spot, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 7, 1968, at 1.
5 Associated Press, Write-In Candidate Names Are Approved, Petaluma Argus-Courier, Sept. 28, 1968, at 1.
From the Opinion of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 23–719
DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
[March 4, 2024]
PER CURIAM.
A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of theFourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from theRepublican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
[at 3-4]
We granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential pri mary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we now reverse.
[at 6]
This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
[at 7-8]
The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.
This can hardly come as a surprise, given that the substantive provisions of the Amendment “embody significant limitations on state authority.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976). Under the Amendment, States cannot abridge privileges or immunities, deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process, deny equal protection, or deny male inhabitants the right to vote (without thereby suffering reduced representation in the House). See Amdt. 14, §§1, 2. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment grants new power to Congress to enforce the provisions of the Amendment against the States. It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office.
The one issue before the Court was the unconstitutional State enforcement of Amendment 14, Section 3. The Supreme Court unanimously sailed Colorado’s usurpation of authority straight up its butt.
The definition of "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment meant "political jurisdiction" (also rephrased as "allegiance") in Elk v. Wilkins of 1884.
"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
A Student Visa recipient retained their foreign residence and allegiance, as the legislative intent of their admission was for study on a temporary basis (rather than to illegally have an "anchor baby" in the US).
This is what is missing from your analysis, and is why your retort makes no sense. You are substituting a definition which supposes that receiving a parking ticket might make an alien a US citizen.
How can you evidence that the intent of the drafters of the 1952 Immigration Act, who would have known of Wong Kim Ark, was to provide a means for aliens who enter the US with Student Visas, to be able to have an "anchor baby" who is born a US citizen?
If that was the intent of the drafters of the 1952 Immigration Act, why would they have classified Student Visa recipients at the time as "non immigrants" (who were ineligible to immigrate)?
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.