Posted on 07/24/2011 5:58:31 PM PDT by skimbell
So? When she was in England she could have claimed it if she wished. As far as the United States was concerned, She was an American Citizen, and so her son was therefore a "Natural Born Citizen."
Hence the children would have dual citizenship. With regard to their mothers' British (or Canadian) subjecthood, they would have been born with a (theoretical) dual loyalty or allegiance. Hence, by some of the natural born citizen theories, Wilson (and Hoover) would have been ineligible for the presidency.
You must have missed the part where I mentioned that Until 1934, wives were automatically naturalized upon marriage. Your point is moot.
Why do you not know that that is completely relevant?
Because it is at odds with the facts, as are most of the arguments to which I find myself responding.
Wilson would presumably have been eligible for dual citizenship in the eyes of the British government. Was he then a natural born citizen, even though his mother may have been recognized by the British government as a British subject all along?
It's amazing how you think this is all so simple and settled. If it's simple and settled -- a no-brainer -- then you lose because the consensus has already been established and it goes against your view. Only if there's some ambiguity and difficulty and uncertainty does your view have a ghost of a chance.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “Even the Entire US Senate argued that John McCain is a ‘Natural born citizen’ by virtue of Jus Sanguinis. I think 100 US Senators beats a full deck of Judges.”
Can you cite even a single one of those 100 Senators saying that a native-born child of a foreigner is *not* eligible? It looks like you made an elementary-school-level error in logic. You took the assertion that if one is born to American parents he is a natural-born citizen, and incorrectly inferred the converse.
Here is what one of those 100 Senators, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said about the eligibility of the native-born on 05 Oct 2004 before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”
DiogenesLamp wrote: “The Fact that the Supreme court has 5/4 decisions on law ought to be evidence that Half the judges don’t know what the hell they are talking about.”
Some disputes are close calls, and that could not be farther from the issue here. Birthers have lost every case at every level. When decided by multi-judge panels, in every case where we know the vote, the ruling against the birther side was unanimous. The Supreme Court’s conferences are closed, but we do know that the defendants consistently waived response, and the Court did not call for a response, which it consistently does if it is going to hear the case. A single justice can call for a response.
The issue here is not 5/4 decisions or whether, “100 US Senators beats a full deck of Judges.” You have none of that. What you have are fantasies and flubs in basic logic.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “Change the political makeup of the courts and you change the meaning of the laws. Forgive me if I have less than contempt for such a system of laws by expediency and whim.”
Your contempt has nothing to do with who is eligible to President of the United States. Barack Obama doesn’t need to re-litigate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The issue was clear and settled by the time he ran.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “I never thought the silly bastard would win. I couldn’t believe he even got on the ballot. Then I couldn’t believe the country was so STUPID as to vote for him! I thought that long before it got to that point someone would point out the obvious. (that he was ineligible.) Why should I have written about an eventuality that I didn’t believe had any chance of coming to pass? Apart from that, I don’t have to justify my opposition in allowing an illegitimate man to slither into our highest office.”
The reason would have been there had you held the position on principle, rather than out of your sheathing hatred of the particular winning candidate, whom you call a slithering bastard.
The Laws of the United States in regarding it's citizens trump the laws of other nations that may lay claim to them. Upon Marriage, Mrs. Wilson became a US Citizen. The fact that another nation may still recognize her as a citizen is immaterial to how the US Government views her. We are bound by our laws, not England's.
Wilson would presumably have been eligible for dual citizenship in the eyes of the British government. Was he then a natural born citizen, even though his mother may have been recognized by the British government as a British subject all along?
Ireland extends Irish Citizenship to anyone of Irish descent. I am told that Italy and Israel do the same for descendents of their former nationals. None of this makes such people "Dual Citizens." The only way that Mrs. Wilson's son would not be a "Natural Born Citizen" is if Mrs. Wilson explicitly rejected her naturalized citizenship prior to the birth of the child. The Child would then be a defacto "dual" citizen.
It's amazing how you think this is all so simple and settled. If it's simple and settled -- a no-brainer -- then you lose because the consensus has already been established and it goes against your view. Only if there's some ambiguity and difficulty and uncertainty does your view have a ghost of a chance.
Not at all. The only thing required is to better educate people who have a false understanding of the issue. Your Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.
I have inferred that regardless of the Opinion of any of the Courts on Jus Soli, the Unanimous SENATE recognized Jus Sanguinus as the Standard by which "Natural Born Citizen" status is bestowed. To Argue that the Standard is Jus Soli, you must Argue that "Anchor Babies" are eligible for the Presidency; A ridiculous suggestion.
Here is what one of those 100 Senators, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said about the eligibility of the native-born on 05 Oct 2004 before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”
He is both right and wrong. The Confusion is the result of people taking the meaning of the individual words and substituting that meaning for that of the term of art used in the Constitution. People nowadays mistakenly believe that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. They fail to realize it only applies to people born here of parents who are here legally. (Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.) Someone born here of Foreign Parents who are here legally, may claim American citizenship because they were born in accordance with the requirements of the 14th amendment. However, this is not at all what the founders meant when they wrote Article II. They specifically meant children who are born to American Parents. The Naturalization act of 1790 indicates they didn't care at all WHERE the children were born, but the Father had to be an American.
Some disputes are close calls, and that could not be farther from the issue here. Birthers have lost every case at every level. When decided by multi-judge panels, in every case where we know the vote, the ruling against the birther side was unanimous. The Supreme Court’s conferences are closed, but we do know that the defendants consistently waived response, and the Court did not call for a response, which it consistently does if it is going to hear the case. A single justice can call for a response.
To my knowledge, they haven't lost a single case yet. They keep getting excluded from court because the courts keep claiming they don't have a right to sue. We won't find out how good this athlete is until we let him take the field. Even then, 4 of the Judges are guaranteed to decide the issue wrongly. (The idiot democrat judges.)
Your contempt has nothing to do with who is eligible to President of the United States. Barack Obama doesn’t need to re-litigate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The issue was clear and settled by the time he ran.
You are right. Wong Kim Ark proves that Barack is not a "Natural Born Citizen." He is a 14th Amendment citizen *IF* he was actually born in Hawaii.
The reason would have been there had you held the position on principle, rather than out of your sheathing hatred of the particular winning candidate, whom you call a slithering bastard.
I don't think you are comprehending my response. I Don't fault the Democrats for not challenging his eligibility because had Hillary done so she would have Automatically pissed off her black voters, without which she had no prayer of winning. (Plus Democrats are incredibly stupid.) I THOUGHT John McCain would challenge him on it, but McCain never said a peep. We later find out that McCain wasn't born in the United States, and given the fact that most people stupidly think the requirement is being born over the soil rather than having American Parents, had he brought the issue up, more people would have questioned HIS eligibility than Baracks! It would have been a net loser for McCain, But at the time, none of us realized McCain had such a big political problem with eligibility himself.
After we realized McCain wasn't going to do it, it became obvious that no one else was in any position to try. (Standing) As the courts have their stupid rules that you can only litigate AFTER damage has occurred, no one could bring a case prior to the injury. (The Injury being an ineligible President was elected.) Had McCain won, there would have been no injury to litigate. Everyone was much shocked when the Courts argued that not a single American has a right to sue for injury caused by the election of an illegitimate President. So here we are, reviling the circumstance of the most illegitimate and foreign person to have ever occupied the White House, and how the legal system let the slithering bastard get away with it. Your quibble about "the principle involved" is just silly. People can only respond to circumstances as they present themselves. There were several events that we had to wait for, which had they transpired differently would have rendered the point moot. Rather than beating a dead horse, you are asking us why we didn't beat a horse before it was born.
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.