Thank you so much for reading the case!
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??
No. The English courts used “subjects” because they had a king. Since we based the meaning on English law, for the point that where you were born is what mattered and not who your parents were, “the concept crossed the Atlantic”, and we put in “citizen” for “subject”.
The court is saying that so everybody Knows it means the same thing.
“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.”
This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.
This might be confusing because when you cite a case, in another case, you don’t just put in the conclusion. That doesn’t explain anything. So in Indiana, if the Indiana court had said just, “Since Wong was a citizen, Obama is a citizen” —nobody would have a frigging clue what they were talking about. The language and reasoning from the prior case is what has to come over to the new case.
Look at the Indiana case and read where they bring over some of the old English cases from Wong into the current case. That is so the decision makes sense. A reader can tell how the court is deciding something,
Well, in all that old English stuff in Wong, is where you find the conclusion that being born here makes you a NBC. They don’t say it again at the bottom, but it is smeared all over the place throughout Wong.
When a court relies on, affirms, or adopts language or reasoning from an older case, and sets it forth in the current case, the older stuff is incorporated in the newer. That is how we maintain a conservative legal system.
Look at the beauty of it. There is a line of reasoning that runs from at least 1608 in England to November 2009, and beyond into 2010. That is stable. That is predictable. That is conservative.
That is one reason why I keep gigging bp2 on “Blackstone”. There are other reasons, but one is that Blackstone is one of the most conservative legal people of all time. When you attack Blackstone, you attack some of the very core concept roots of conservatism. Now Jefferson wasn’t fond of Blackstone, but it was because Blackstone was too conservative for him.
Remember we were born as a nation in change. Jefferson was part of that change. Back then, if you were a conservative, you would probably remained loyal to England. So it is kind of funny/sad to watch people trash Blackstone, and they don’t even know what they’re trashing. They’re trashing conservative roots to get get Obama. Just amazing.
parsy
This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.
Wong wasn't pronounced a natural born by the Justice GrAy because it was obvious he was not and only that he was a "native" born. At least your little Indiana court admitted to that fact that the Supreme Court did not say he was an NBC. Other than that, the Indiana court is just dead wrong like you. The Wong opinion created a whole new class of citizens the anchor babies by disregarding the original intent of the 14th Amendment Furthermore, the silly Indiana court if it had properly researched Supreme Court set precedent, it would not have embarrassed itself with opinionated dribble. Their liberal predisposition and lack of internal fortitude was just too overwhelming for them to ignore.
As an example, Ms Hand Purse, below is the Supreme Court declaring a citizen of the US under the 14th Amendment:
- - - --- - - - - -
Kawakita v. United States
No. 570
Argued April 2-3, 1952
Decided June 2, 1952
343 U.S. 717
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
-snip-
At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law.
-snip-
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was
convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932.
First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97.
-end snip-
- - - - - - -
This is a clear cut example to what is a native born v. a natural born citizen according to the concordance and usage of the Supreme Court. You'll further note Kawakita was a duel citizen and therefore noway this guy with duel allegiances could ever be an natural born citizen.
It's no denying it, your Indiana court opinion that you cherish sooooo much is all poppycock in the words of a fellow Obot of yours.
One more time for you, only slower to help you figure it out. 'So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen??' Obama's Web site says his birth was governed by British law ... do you get it now??
This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.
I didn't see anything cite from the Wong "course" that supported the conclusion made by the Hoosier half-wits, I mean Indiana court. I certainly found plenty, like you showed previously that undermines their misunderstanding of Wong.
That is one reason why I keep gigging bp2 on “Blackstone”.
What on Earth does that have to do with what I posted?? Focus, friend, focus. I haven't said anything about Blackstone.