Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.
If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.
I see the usual Bambi ball-gargler brigade leaders are out today.
Where’s the rest of the Stockholm-Syndrome conservatives?
I've been saying that for a while. If the citizens don't have standing against the POTUS, then we surely do against her.
Here's a bit more from the majority decision that supports jus soli because of our heritage of English common law:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
The Court fully held that just soli held well after the Declaration of Independence and prevailed under the constitution as originally established. Meaning since the founding of these United States.
The Ark case is the definitive case relating to natural born citizenship via jus soli and it is unequivocal, by the statement above of the court: from the English common law foundations of the Nation, natural born citizenship is a function of birthplace, and that held continuously from the colonies through the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution, and the later writing and passage of the constitution.
bump
Hill was shut up and I mean SHUT UP. Notice how she's but a mere shadow figure now. She might have had the goods on him but "they" had bigger goods on her and Bill. I suspect "they" presented her with an offer she couldn't refuse like she plays nice or it's orange suit time.
They’re Hussein’s Choom Gang.
“rejoice in the fact that the pos in the WH is ineligible and laugh “
This is the reason I know they are trolls.
It must be a nightmare to exist in their kool-aid washed brains. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
I understand this concept is hard for those of you to understand, but just because some words were changed in Title 8, that is available to read online, without actual legislation being passed does not make it law.
Ramsay was a member of the constitutional convention as well as a signer of the constitution and his dissertation is more credible to the intent of the framers than some rogue justice(appointed by the only other usurper) who ignored his own ruling, in the landmark case of Elk v Wilkins that held the civil rights act & the 14th Amendment to be constitutional, for some progressive political agenda.
And let's not forget Grey's later decisions that led to great monetary gain. Decisions that have since been overturned.
I take for granted that you are very happy as to who is "occupying" the White House, and that you popped the champagne bottle when it happened and for sure you want to keep him there, indefinitely???
Roberts and friends got a "courtesy" visit on January 14th, before the inauguration. All the media was "briefed" as well, do we need to say more???
I guess you could do that.
You would be colossally wrong, but you could certainly do it.
I fully recognize that; I would also remind you that - in absence of a definition or concrete guidance by a majority of the founders of the United States - we only have the legal system to rely upon.
For example, the ONLY statute that ever existed that defined a natural born citizen said that it was the case for children born abroad of two US citizens! And that law - passed in 1790 - was superseded in 1795 and removed. Clearly the founders (still the majority of Congress in 1790) deemed that natural born citizenship extended to a definition outside of Vattel, given the lack of location required to be a natural born citizen.
And that includes Ramsay.
Thus again, we get to the crux of the matter: what legal definition exists in the US Constitution, statutes, or settled law that defines what a natural born citizen is? Without that, at best you can argue it needs to be better defined but not that a person is excluded based upon a personal opinion. Lacking a legal definition to the contrary, I don't see how Ark does not hold sway.
We need the RAID spray can!!!
Now gunner you can do better than that, why do you think that???
Assumptions and character attacks are the sign of a weak position.
The focus should be on his natural born citizen status..not the birth certificate or the social security number.
It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii or not. He is not a natural born or a native born citizen.
Judge Bouvier was admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania in 1818. This gets him pretty darn close to the Founders.
Google is blocking full view of this Law Dictionary, I purchased it a few weeks ago for a dollar.
The term natural-born citizen used in the federal constitution is not therein defined. Its meaning must be gathered from the common law; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. M9,18 Sup. Ct 456, 42 L. Ed. 890.
Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office ; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the united States, except the offices of president and vice-president
APPARENTLY, you do not know how to read a SCOTUS opinion ...
It begins with a question, continues with DICTA, and ends with the decision. The only two parts that are relevant are the question and the decision. The dicta is an explanation of the reasoning AND NOT the decision.
DICTA: Opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in court's opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of author of opinion and NOT binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. State ex rel. Foster v. Naftalin 246 Minn. 181, 74 N.W.2d 249.
The Ark case could, should, and was decided SOLELY on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Justice Horace Gray wrote the opinion, so the dicta reflects HIS opinion. Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur who, himself, had questions about his eligibility to hold the office of President.
The dicta concerning English Common Law he included in the opinion was ENTIRELY irrelevant to the disposition of the case. The case hinged upon birth within the United States, as per the 14th Amendment, and the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since Ark [and his parents] spent most of their lives in the United States [until his parents returned to China in their old age] and the fact that Ark remained a resident of the United States, the jurisdictional issue was settled.
So, why did Gray include the references to English Common Law? Who knows - perhaps he was a friend of Arthur and wanted to help him out by trying to squash the questions of his eligibility [reputation-wise]. BTW, Gray bastardized and even flat-out lied concerning the meanings some of the citations in his dicta.
But more importantly, why DIDN'T Gray declare Ark to be a "natural born citizen" instead of just declaring him to be a "citizen"? He CLEARLY thought that Ark was natural-born.
The reason is that the other justices that formed the majority in Ark WERE able to declare him a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment, but WERE NOT willing to declare him "natural-born". So, for Gray, half a loaf was better than none ...
FINALLY, if Ark DID settle the "natural-born citizen" question, WHY hasn't it been cited as precedent under the stare decisis doctrine [the doctrine of precedence]? The reason is that Ark DID NOT decide the issue.
Now, if you want to debate the point(s) with me concerning English Common Law, you better do A LOT of reading first [I have]. You CANNOT trust the dicta in the Ark opinion, so I suggest that you read Calvin's Case, Dicey, the De Natis Ultra Mare Act [1351], Cowell's legal definition [1701], the Act of Settlement, the Laws of William I, and the British Nationality Act of 1730, to name a few.
Well, since you pinged me:
Here is a online version. I don’t feel like reading the whole thing, but at N, under “Natives”, you find:
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouviern.txt
” 4.-2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.
5.-1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.
6. The act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, approved April 14, 1802, Sec. 4, provides that the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” But, the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided in the United States.
7.-2d. Natives who are not citizens are, first, the children of ambassadors, or other foreign ministers, who, although born here, are subjects or citizens of the government of their respective fathers.
Secondly, Indians, in general, are not citizens. Thirdly, negroes, or descendants of the African race, in general, have no power to vote, and are not eligible to office. “
This pretty well tracks with the majoritarian view of the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 , and the Ankeny court in 2009.
parsy
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.