Posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:19 PM PST by edge919
I've been giving this some thought, because it's clear to me, but others seem to have a hard time understanding why the natural-born citizen definition is an exclusive, self-limiting definition. The new Obot case du jour is Ankeny v. Daniels which claims that Minor's definition of NBC left it open as to WHO could be a natural-born citizen other than those born in the country to citizen parents. It's a false assumption because it ignores that the Minor court explored every known permutation and possible combination of parentage and birth location criteria for defining the different classes of citizenship.
We'll put that issue aside for now and focus on how the language is sufficient to the cause. The best way to show this, IMO, is by using a simple analogy with a very visual theme. First: Here's the exact language from Minor v. Happersett:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
For an analogy to be effective and accurate, we must emulate this language and use it in a similar manner. "Natural-born citizen" is a specific type of citizen. Natural born modifies the noun citizen, so we need a noun for our analogy and a modifier that acts upon that noun in a similar way. Some people might like to use cats and dogs or apples and oranges, but I think we need something that can be modified in a very specific way with a clearly defined meaning, thus I came up with the shape of a triangle, so let's plug that in:
At common mathematical law, with the nomenclature known by geometrists, it was never doubted that all polygons with three equal sides and equal vertex angles are triangles. These are the regular triangles, or equilateral triangles, as distinguished from cones and pyramids. Some experts go further and include as triangles all shapes without reference to the number of sides. As to this class there are doubts, but never to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now that all shapes composed of three equal sides with equal vertex angles are triangles."
In this analogy, a polygon that doesn't consider the number of sides might be a triangle, but to solve the doubts, the number of sides need to be counted. In order to be an equilateral triangle (analogous with how to be a natural-born citizen), then the rest of the criteria have to be applied: equal sides and equal vertex angles ... with that being analogous to born in the country to citizen parents. Three sides MIGHT be a triangle the same way born in the country might be a citizen, but the other criteria has to be included to meet the more specific classifications of equilateral triangles and natural-born citizens.
Equilateral triangle = NBC
Isosceles triangle = naturalized citizen
Square minus one side = Obama
For a triangle, you can say it's in doubt because the number of sides is unknown, but there's no argument for saying the number of sides is unimportant to the argument, unless you get into non-Euclidean geometry, which is the mathematical equivalent of a birther legal fantasy land.
Euclidean geometry is too superficial. It lacks depth.
There are two large, unconnected circles which represent the two major categories of citizenship. One circle is the naturlaized citizen. The other circle has at least three smaller circles within it: citizen by place of birth, as separate from citizen by parents at birth, and citizen by both parents and place of birth, of that category there has never been dispute. That third category is where the other two inner circles overlap, forming the jus soli + jus sanguina category of which Rep. The Minor v Hapersett & Rep. Howard (author of the 14th Amend.) said there had never been any dispute.
-PJ
That is what diagram Van Irion held up in his presentation to Malihi.
At common mathematical law, with the nomenclature known by geometrists, it was never doubted that all polygons with three equal sides and equal vertex angles are triangles. These are the regular triangles, or equilateral triangles, as distinguished from squares and pentagons. Some experts go further and include as triangles all shapes with three sides without reference to the length of their sides. As to this class there are doubts, but never to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now that all shapes composed of three equal sides with equal vertex angles are triangles."which is the way those of us who disagree with you have been saying it should be read. The problem with yours is that you left out anything analogous to "born within the jurisdiction," a problem my "with three sides" addresses.
So it was a Van Venn diagram?
It is so common sense that I’m not surprised such a clear illustration was ignored by the obamanoid judge. Had he acknowledged even comprehending it the specious Ankeny ruling would not have been cited. But then Judge Malihi didn’t formulate what he wrote anyway, the Chicago mob did.
Van Irion’s venn diagram can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76900058/Flier-Handout-Obama-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-with-Venn-Diagram-Support-Art2SuperPAC
FWIW, Van Irion’s diagram appears to state that children born to US parents outside the boundaries of the US are not NBC’s.
I'll explain, doofus:
The large circle is native born, and inside the larger circle are to two smaller circles which overlap each other at the third category of both jus soli and jus sanguina, the formula about which there has never been dispute, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Yoou try so hard to be a prick that you prick yourself with your point, little nettle. Now loosen your obamanoid kneepads and find some other tale to chase.
Ahhh, MHG. Always the charmer.
Just so we’re clear, no one born outside of US borders can be an NBC under any circumstances?
Give it another try, obamanoid. Try to make it confusing when it is so clear. Spittle way, doofus.
Thanks for confirming that the analogy is dead on. This follows the exact language of Minor. What you’re referencing is irrelevant because the Minor court already said NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark confirmed this point.
This has nothing to do with Venn diagramming. Evidently you’ve become confused because I used a triangle analogy. This is about the language, not a diagram. I suggested pictures of triangles only to help visualize the difference between the words.
“All shapes” is the phrase that is analogous with “children born within the jurisdiction” ... the extra detail you came up with doesn’t change the obvious fact that equilateral triangle is only defined by the criteria in the preceding sentence.
It is just staggering that you haven't convinced the world yet.
But it's not, because there's no restriction on "all shapes." It doesn't say "some authorities go further and include as citizens all children," it says "children who meet a certain criterion." Your analogy isn't working.
But let's say you tweak it so it works. You have to admit that my version is just as valid as yours. Which means that the multiple courts who read Minor the way I do aren't "wrong," as you keep insisting. They just disagree with you.
The way you “tweaked” it doesn’t change that the definition was used in an exclusive manner. The only way the second class can be equal to the first class is by meeting the criteria used exclusively to define that first class. This proves without doubt the courts such as Ankeny are reading it wrong. Wong Kim Ark did NOT read it wrong. Extending the triangle analogy, they used a broader definition of “triangle” and characterized that definition with a completely different term to avoid calling or equating Ark’s citizenship with an “equilateral triangle.”
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.