Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Where did that 6 in 10 number come from?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From here: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=187781
There is a link within the editorial to the original CNN poll.
“Wrong, I was quoting the SCOTUS, previously misquoted by edge### to not include the relevant passage. I left nothing out, shame on you!”
The quote I refered to was......
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
......and you implied that mere birth within the uS jurisdiction was enough to convey NBC status....
The full quote from Minor in KWA is......
” ‘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”
The meaning of which is quite different than what you implied when you posted.....
You left out quite a lot there. The court defines NBC, born in country to 2 citizen parents, and then goes on to ask rhetoricaly about the citizenship of people that do not meet that definition of 2 parents...notice that they ask in effect.....are they citizens?.....The court ruled, because of the 14 Amendment that there were citizens other than Natural Born Citizens, and that these citizens enjoyed full citizenship and had the same rights as the NBCs.
Again the Presidency is not a right of citizenship......there are eligibility requirements, of which NBC is one, to hold that elected Office......mere citizenship ala WKA does not meet that eligibility requirement for President......
Except in a few passages as above, the USSC has never, not once in it’s history, ruled on the Constitutional eligibility requirements, includung NBC, for the Office of the President.
Not once, because all before Obama have met the definition of born in country to two citizen parents, and there was no reason to challenge their eligibility. (yeah, I know about Chester Arthur...another lost opportunity.....sigh)
I’ll wager that if you really think that mere birth within US borders is the Founders intended requirement that we should test it before the USSC, and see whose position prevails! Come on! Push with me for a USSC review of Obama’s eligibility....lets join hands and settle this once and for all!
Wanna Bet on the outcome? Put your money where your mouth is?
No, of course you won’t...... it’s a losers bet.....as in I win.... you lose! LOLOLOLOL
“Wrong, I was quoting the SCOTUS, previously misquoted by edge### to not include the relevant passage. I left nothing out, shame on you!”
The quote I refered to was......
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
......and you implied that mere birth within the uS jurisdiction was enough to convey NBC status....
The full quote from Minor in KWA is......
” ‘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”
The meaning of which is quite different than what you implied when you posted.....
You left out quite a lot there. The court defines NBC, born in country to 2 citizen parents, and then goes on to ask rhetoricaly about the citizenship of people that do not meet that definition of 2 parents...notice that they ask in effect.....are they citizens?.....The court ruled, because of the 14 Amendment that there were citizens other than Natural Born Citizens, and that these citizens enjoyed full citizenship and had the same rights as the NBCs.
Again the Presidency is not a right of citizenship......there are eligibility requirements, of which NBC is one, to hold that elected Office......mere citizenship ala WKA does not meet that eligibility requirement for President......
Except in a few passages as above, the USSC has never, not once in it’s history, ruled on the Constitutional eligibility requirements, includung NBC, for the Office of the President.
Not once, because all before Obama have met the definition of born in country to two citizen parents, and there was no reason to challenge their eligibility. (yeah, I know about Chester Arthur...another lost opportunity.....sigh)
I’ll wager that if you really think that mere birth within US borders is the Founders intended requirement that we should test it before the USSC, and see whose position prevails! Come on! Push with me for a USSC review of Obama’s eligibility....lets join hands and settle this once and for all!
Wanna Bet on the outcome? Put your money where your mouth is?
No, of course you won’t...... it’s a losers bet.....as in I win.... you lose! LOLOLOLOL
The birther issue is really neither here nor there. There is no outcome that can rectify the deciept or satisfy the public.
“I couldn’t agree more. Nobody but YOU said anything about rights.”
Yes I did.... and I said that the rights of all citizens are equal....are you disagreeing with that statement? If you are can you tell where the rights of citizens are are different?
“But a naturalized citizen cannot be said to be “as much a citizen” as a natural born citizen, they are not.”
HUH?????
When there is a court decision (you win I lose, queue maniacal laughter), I will pay up.
When 0bma is out of office via the ballot box, will you pay up?
Do you take the bet?
I didn't say that.
I have been asking if there were citizens other than naturalized or natural-born, and have yet to see a CITATION (your say so means nothing) otherwise. Whoever said the above, did they give a citation for their contention that there were citizens other than NBC’s (and naturalized of course)?
“It is the decision of Kim Wong Ark that he, or the child of TWO foreign parents, if born in the USA , would be “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens, and according to the precedent cited a “natural born subject” of these United States.”
The statement”...as much a citizen as a natural born child of citizens...” did not confer NBC status upon KWA......nor was the thrust of the case about defining that term.
The question addressed in KWA was “are there classes of citizens besides NBC?” KWA was declared a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. He was born under the jurisdiction of the US, to resident aliens that had allegiance to the US. KWA declared a citizen with the rights of full citizenship. He was not declared to be a NBC. Implying that he was is pure nonsense.
There's nothing confusing about the terminology, other than your refusal to admit what the words actually say. All children, born in the country of parents who are citizens = the nomenclature familiar to the founders. These are the natives or natural born citizens. So simple, even an obot should an understand.
But they didn't, and the phrase they used makes sense as the American version of Natural Born Subject.
Except that nothing in the decision ever says that natural born citizen is the American version of natural born subject. They were specific in the words they did use. Plus, we know U.S. law rejected at least one or more of the unnatural constructs of natural born subjectship. Children born overseas weren't inherently considered to be natural born citizens. It took a naturalization act to express this principle, although it was short-lived. So much for that faither theory.
They also cite Dicey:
It's funny how you faithers go on and on that Vattel isn't U.S. law, but you have no problems citing other names and acting as if those are, despite the fact that, for example, Dicey's definition was not cited as THE definition of natural born citizen, while Vattel's was. Ouch, faithers, ouch! Further, this 'leading principle' of English law was enacted through a naturalization declaration by a king who was unilaterally claiming the subjects of Scotland as his own. The act didn't pertain to foreigners, per se, but to Scots whose children were born in England.
The bolded sentence doesn't change the context. It doesn't change that only one of these defintions has never had doubts. It doesn't change that the Minor decision only used ONE of these defintions as THE definition of natural born citizen. It doesn't change the fact that Justice Waite said the accepted defintion of natural born citizen was THE defintion in the nomenclature familiar to the framers of the Constitution. That alone tells us that in regards to the Constitutional issue of presidential eligibility, ONLY ONE DEFINITION APPLIES. So, no, curiosity, the burden is solely on YOU to man up. I've destroyed your pathetic and errant accusation of quoting this definition of out context. Repeating that debunked accusation does not make it true and never will.
“I never posted what you said I posted...” then you quote me.....
“You left out quite a lot there. The court defines NBC, born in country to 2 citizen parents, and then goes on to ask rhetoricaly about the citizenship of people that do not meet that definition of 2 parents...notice that they ask in effect.....are they citizens?.....The court ruled, because of the 14 Amendment that there were citizens other than Natural Born Citizens, and that these citizens enjoyed full citizenship and had the same rights as the NBCs.”
“I didn’t say that.”....no I wrote that. Are you following this conversation? I like Islay single malt like “Balmore” myself!
“I have been asking if there were citizens other than naturalized or natural-born, and have yet to see a CITATION (your say so means nothing) otherwise. Whoever said the above, did they give a citation for their contention that there were citizens other than NBC’s (and naturalized of course)?”
A citation? sigh!
Read and understand Kim Wong Arc. The whole case revolves on citizenship other than NBC.....!
You keep posting exerpts from it yet seemingly fail to understand it.....read it in its full context! You’ll answer your own question above!
Kim Wong Arc was declared a citizen other than a NBC. The court used the 14 amendment for their finding of non NBC citizenship.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the birther issue is a real one. You don’t spend 2 million bucks and counting to lawyers to prevent your birth certificate from being released if there isn’t a problem. You don’t release a poorly photoshopped one on the internet that people can clearly see was doctored.
I am just saying to pin it all on Rush that he’s not giving this particular issue (or anyone’s pet peeve issue) as much attention as YOU want him to, and because of that, calling it quits with Rush, I think, is too myopic. Rush’s show isn’t a Glenn Beck type show. It is not three hours going over great legal details and explaining things for hours - that’s not his entertainment style and it’s not what he does.
Now, if someone else who’s filed a lawsuit wins to see the real birth certificate, and the story of this issue continues on, Rush will cover it, because it will be in the news and he will most certainly share his comments on it with us.
..and when I said “YOU” I didn’t mean you but the original poster....
Either way they never say Kim Wong Ark isn't a natural born citizen. They say that he would be, according to English precedent, a “natural born subject”, and that in accordance with this principle, he would be “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizen parents.
That is quite a LONG way from carving out a particular category apart from being either a naturalized or natural born citizen. So far it is like WAY OUT THERE!
SO do you take the bet?
Come on? You sure seemed confident when you said you were going to win and I was going to lose and laughed.
You DO understand that a distinction is being made?? An apple is as much a piece of fruit as an orange, but an apple is still not an orange. This same concept applies to Obama. Even if he were born in the United States and was subject to the 14th amendment (something that has never been legally established), he is still just a fruit.
Looking at your profile page perhaps it is you who isn’t realizing what they are saying.
Isn’t it a contradiction to have a sentence referring to “In Defense of Capitalism “ when you refuse to defend the vetting of the US Presidents office?
The Clintons are **not** squeaky clean. Obama has plenty of dirt on them, too. So?...What happen if both Obama and Hillary hit the red nuclear button?
** Obama ( before the election) would have said, “Gee folks! I'm sorry. My bad.”, and he would have gone back to his day job as Senator.
** Hillary and Bill had much more to lose. For them the consequence would be PRISON!
Now that Obama is our purported president, Hillary is finding it politically more advantageous to have Obama shoot himself in his own foot. Why should she risk have the entire black community furious with her? Hey! That at least 10% of the vote.
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.