@I’m the pater familias! I’m bona fide, dammit!!
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
This is what the Indiana code referenced in Arkeny says:
“IC 3-8-1-6 President or Vice President
Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.”
So he was simply referencing Indiana legal code.
Why the difference?
The Constitution as written does not mention “Clauses” - You will see Articles and Sections on the written document but not clauses. So the Founders did not identify specific requirements with specific clauses.
Here is how the Constitution is actually organized - the word clause is nowhere to be seen.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
Now the Constitution originally had 8 requirements in Art II section 1. Two of those requirements were removed by Constitutional Amendment. The 12A in 1804 removed the third requirement in the section. Since the word Clause was not part of the actual Constitution and was used informally to identify separated sections - some legal scholars took the AMENDED Constitution and ignored those sections that were removed through amendment. Remove the third requirement and the 5th becomes the 4th. When the practice of using the word Clause was initiated, some applied it to the Constitution as written while some applied it to the Constitution as amended - which is what Indiana does.
Your are right. Roe vs Wade invalidates that particular argument.
You snip starts with the sentence “no other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country.”
What are those rules you apparently don’t think are important?
Which brings up the comment made by Harlan1196.
Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?
If someone is able to recognize, and evidence, an error by the court then they are able to "understand the issue" at least as well as, if not better than, the judges.
It also illustrates that if someone can recognize the errors made in one instance then they should also be able to recognize other instances of error.
Enforcing the impression that we're all idiots and incapable of determining issues on our own and only judges can do so, as Harlan1196 is doing, is an insult to all Americans.
Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations.
You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.
Besides, the court rejected the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in Sloan v U.S.
I showed that it was a specific law in 1907 that automatically linked a woman’s citizenship to her husband.
You replied with an unsubstantiated word salad.
Show me the laws prior to 1907 - should be simple to do. Just the American ones since foreign laws don’t apply here.
Here is what you said...
This is what the Indiana code referenced in Arkeny says...
And this what footnote 9 says...See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6. Also, not only.
But what does Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States say compared to Clause 5?
Isn't that a pretty damning indictment of the Indiana State legislature when their laws aren't even in accord with the Constitution of the United States?
Where does it say that a women marrying a foreigner lost her American citizenship?
Your bill still allows split citizenship parents.
And can you show that this bill was actually passed into law? Where is the partner Senate Bill?
Go read my post again and then address my actual arguments.
Show me the word “Clause” in the original Constitution.
The Indiana Code refers to the amended Constitution. A clause was removed from that section.
The ventrem rule only applied in cases of unmarried women.
And I too can give a link. It has "clause" throughout it.
@http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html - THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Much mischief with our laws and freedom is the result of the 14th amendment. It only passed at all because federal troops occupied dissident states, and passing this amendment was a required condition for them to be withdrawn.
Roe v Wade is also based on a fundamental misapplication of the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment.
Or am I just supposed to "take your word for it"?
Your point about possible adoption and issuance of a replacement certificate is interesting and credible.
Sadly, there is way too much that we don't know about this White House occupier.
The Indiana Code refers to the amended Constitution
How do you know that? Can you give evidence that what you're claiming is correct and accurate?
Or am I just supposed to "take your word for it"?
It makes more sense then your idea that the State of Indiana doesn’t understand the Constitution.
Have you found a instance yet of the Constitution with the word Clause in it?
Did I not give you a link to the entire decision? I KNOW I gave you the name of it. (Ex Parte Reynolds.) Here is a link to the Entire decision. Read it to your heart's content.
It does not favor your position anywhere.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u-87AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Look at the Constitution AS WRITTEN. The one that was signed. That old piece of brown parchment. That one.
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.