BC? Big Deal. He's still not a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen

The Radio Patriot ^ | April 27, 2011 | Andrea Shea King

[freekitty]

His is cropped.

[freekitty]

The one I saw does not look like the twins. It has been cropped.

[Coyotehockey]

The data structure and the form are identical. Don’t forget that you are looking at copies - one of which was done 50 years ago. I don’t think it is reasonable that the copies would look exactly same. For one thing the technology has changed.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1566#1566

[Gondring]

I guess you were looking at one of the fakes that have floated around...?

[Captain Kirk]

You can use “letters.” I prefer the language of the document itself. Unfortunately, the fuzzy language on citizenship does not help much; hence, we need to look to other souces including the Arthur precedent (which is against you) and the most recent court rulings since U.S v. Kim Wong Ark (which are also against you)

[frogjerk]

You can use “letters.” I prefer the language of the document itself. Unfortunately, the fuzzy language on citizenship does not help much; hence, we need to look to other souces including the Arthur precedent (which is against you) and the most recent court rulings since U.S v. Kim Wong Ark (which are also against you)

Since the language is fuzzy in itself as you admit you need to go back to the Founders original intent which is displayed in the letter from John Jay to George Washington as a huge hint as to what was intended. The so-called precedent of Arthur is weak at best because your assertion is that because the question wasn't brought up that was an admission of it was OK. That will not do.

Let me look up the case you are talking about as well and I will get back to you.

[Captain Kirk]

The so-called precedent of Arthur is weak at best because your assertion is that because the question wasn't brought up that was an admission of it was OK.

You are evading the larger issue. IMHO, you have two altenratives to account for why they didn't bring it up, One: either voters in 1880 were very, very stupid compared to today's voters. I contend that just the opposite is true. If you reject that alternative, IMHO, you have only one left: they didn't bring it up because they didn't think it had any bearing on his eligibility. If true, that would shot to hell any claim that your definition was the "accpeted" default definition in American history of "natural born."

Which of these positions do you subscribe to? If you have a third position for why they didn't bring it up, please explain and justify.

[Captain Kirk]

As you investigate the Kim Wong case, you might want to pay attention to the highlighted endorsement of Coke (my highlight). Could the ruling be any more obvious?

"The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’"