Posted on 08/07/2009 11:08:55 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
Note that Craig had previously appealed to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending and is scheduled to be discussed on September 29, 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamaconspiracy.org ...
Did you see the material from Canada..The radio broadcast of the investigation by the Canadian Press ....THe American MSM has been threaten since before the election RE: the BC....Job, lives etc...Named names.
Will link ya to it in case some one else stumples along. Several posts in this area, including a brief synopsis and a link to the program.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=8146
Over here ...Quick!
Which case is this anyway....I’m lost again? Who’s the lawyers? Plaintiff? defendent? What’s the premise?
This is good...right? I would hate to see the dem rat Congress try to pass some law concerning this whole constitutional issue.
Just found the link and read it. Dad’s watching a ball game.
..Seems to me he defined the three fairly well. Naturalized and native have the same priveleges except for the Natural born which is set apart in the Constitution. Is that how you interpreted it?
If that’s the case the plaintiff achieved his objective.
Read it here and ignore half the chatter.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
By the way, the title is wrong--the decision is a Circuit Court of Appeals decision which affirms dismissal by the Western District in Oklahoma.
Just another garden variety con law decision--plaintiff doesn't have and can't manufacture standing or a case or controversy. Nothing to do with the merits; otherwise just a bunch of dictum.
2 In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other citizens under the law:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and arecoextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the“natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen,
and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights.
The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S.,22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-
28 (
“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).
Yes HS, I saw the link and plan on listening to it later.
I hope they have the proof. It needs to be made public if so.
Thanks.
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.