Posted on 09/24/2011 12:42:07 PM PDT by Talkradio03
Why does citing binding US Supreme court precedent make anyone a “nutcase birther?”
As I understand, the derogatory term “birther” applies to those who doubt that Obama was born in the US. I gave no opinion on that whatsoever.
I gave a cite and a Supreme Court precedent that says a “natural born citizen” is born in the USA of 2 citizen parents.
Instead of name calling, could you please provide the US Supreme Court case in which that precedent was overruled?
I agree the MSM will take him apart. The GOP needs a well known person who will not be defined by the MSM and has gravitas. If you just look at the history of gOp VP picks from Nixon in’52, Agnew ‘68, Dole ‘76, Quayle ‘88, Palin ‘08 it becomes obvious. Than you contrast them with Lodge, Bush, Kemp and Cheney then you know what to expect.
Except it doesn't. See my post above.
NATURAL BORN CLARITY
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)
The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.
Such avoidance and restraint were called for. In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question. Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1.
Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment. And here lies the rub of clarity:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/07/attorney-donofrio-express-lane-to.html
No they didn't. Try reading the freakin' ruling. It took me all of five minutes.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts
.
Wow, is this twisted.
The issue was, “Was the woman in this case a citizen.”
The woman in this case was ascertained to be a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, since she was born here of 2 citizen parents.
Since she filled the higher requirement of “natural born citizen,” the court did not need to determine whether she was a mere citizen under the 14th Amendment.
That was the issue to be left to determine in a future case- what constituted mere citizenship.
They simply refused to rule on the issue of what constituted a “natural born citizen” since she was in the former catagory. They left unadressed the status of people born here with non-citizen parents. Generally, SCOTUS only rules on what is needed to determine the case. So there is no precedent as to whether someone born here, with non-citizen parents is a “natural born citizen”.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
“They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.
No they didn’t. Try reading the freakin’ ruling. It took me all of five minutes.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”
I did read it, and it takes more that 5 minutes.
Again, reread what you just posted. The court did not need to decide , “for the purposes of this case, if the woman, Minor, was a (mere) citizen. Since she had already qualified as a “natural born citizen” under Article 11, Section 1, there was no need for them to define what constitues a mere citizen. Obviously, as a “natural born citizen” she was a citizen.
The court is saying that it need not define mere citizenship to solve this particular case. This lady already met the higher standard.
Squeeky, that case is from the Court of Appeals in Indiana.
You may certainly take the stance that the US Supreme Court case re: Minor does not define “natural born citizen.” And I would argue the exact opposite.
But using an Indiana case to prove your point is weak.
You are inserting “mere” to change the meaning of what they said to agree with you. That’s your opinon only. They make no such distinction, and use “natural born citizen” and “native citizen” as being the same. The point is, if you are need to be “naturalized” you are not a natural born citizen. If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. The wording was put in the Consitution to ensure that only people who are born citizens can become president. There is no precedent to the contrary, and your attempt to create a third class is not supported by this decision or any other.
Until a court agrees with you, I’m done arguing it.
Stop polluting FreeRepublic with your smears and half-truths.
It’s a free country and you can have whatever opinion you want, but when you give legal advice about conservatives like Rubio and Jindle being able to run for office, then you have to make sure you are not spreading false and bad legal advice stuff. Sooo, when a court says something, that is what the law is even if you don’t agree with it. If you want to be honest, then you need to let everybody know that how you are interpreting stuff is completely different from how most people read it and how the courts are interpreting it. Because if you read the Indiana court stuff, those people said the same stuff all you Vattle Birthers are, that natural born people had to have two citizen parents, and they lost. I don’t think that Rubio and Jindle are going to appreciate you spreading these things that are just made up. Plus, it is not nice to other conservatives.
Anyone who closely observed any recent Presidential campaign ought to have rediscovered the truth that US Senators make the worst possible Presidential candidates imaginable for so many obvious reasons it should not be necessary to list them all here.
Marco Rubio is a Freshman Senator, and if that is the branch of Government he chose, then he needs to stick with it and try to improve that branch instead of using it as a launching pad to another, like Premier Hussein did.
They also have to be born in one of the original 13 colonies, and their parents have to have been born in one of the 13.
There was a grandfather clause. Jefferson fell under that clause ‘cause both his parents were immigrants. So you are saying if they were born in the territory and not in one of the 13 states they were not considered a NBC and therefore could not run for President or VP? Interesting I did not know that.
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.