Replies

Actually, this was germane. (germane means half german and half french)

“That 1898 SCOTUS Opinion was NEVER intended to determine Presidential Eligibility in the eyes of our Framers — a FACT that you After-Birthers KNOW to be true, but just choose to ignore!”

You are right about the first part. But, when you define “being born in the country” as fitting into it, it stays kinda defined. And, a reasonable person cannot read Wong in its entirety without coming to that conclusion. Over and over and over again.

Now, an unreasonable person can. An unreasonable person can ignore all the language going back to 1608 or earlier. An unreasonable person can say to the ones who believe it “there’s no way you can think that, that Wong defines NBC, without being an Obama lover”

Holler, kick, and scream all you want to. You can not reasonably deny that NBC has been defined in Wong. And you sure can’t in the Indiana case. They come right out and say it, in what, one or two sentences.

Methinks thous dost protest too much.

parsy, who “methinks” a lot

Actually, this was germane. (germane means half german and half french)

"The g*ddamn Germans got nothin' to do with it."

You can not reasonably deny that NBC has been defined in Wong.

Yes I can. The answer lies in the language and source materials used at the time the Framers ratified the Constitution, as they indicate from Minor v. Happersett. And in that Constitutional-context, not a statutory-context, the issue has yet to be decided upon by the SCOTUS or via the Constitutional Amendment process.

And you sure can’t in the Indiana case. They come right out and say it, in what, one or two sentences.

I most certainly do! If YOUR interpretation of "see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were 'natural-born citizens of the United States')" falsely confirms that Obama is a NBC, I will affirm that it's a flawed and improperly applied lower court decision. In that regard, it is just like the 70 years of flawed decisions that emanated from the 1939 United States v. Miller SCOTUS Opinion that I schooled you on earlier.

Parsley, the only protesting is by After-Birthers who pick and choose SCOTUS Opinion citations like they're eating slop at a Chinese buffet!

(hey Monkey-boy, I think they're serving bananas for you over on the fruit bar)

You can not reasonably deny that NBC has been defined in Wong.

You're right. It's been defined, and if adhered to strictly, would invalidate any claim of Obama's being a natural born citizen.

And you sure can’t in the Indiana case.

The Indiana case is a mess. It seems to lazily denigrate the plaintiffs case, "Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite." Pinpoint citations?? What the hell is that supposed to mean. I noticed they selectively OMIT the part about the parents being permanent immigrants form their citation of Wong: "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment." Leaving that out completely changes the legal context. They include this quote: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen?? Obama has apparently claimed the former not the latter. And then this final part, pure comedy: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." Yet in the footnote on the same page of the citation, they admit that Wong Kim Ark did not pronounce the plaintiff a natural born citizen. "The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States." So, wait, this acknowledge that WKA didn't really say that being born within the borders of the United States made anyone a natural born citizen. How stupid is that??

Pansley,

Again, stop quoting Wiki and READ Wong Kim Ark v US.

Justice Gray's citations are VERY CLEAR:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.