Posted on 10/25/2011 11:49:30 PM PDT by Danae
Dude, you spend too much time in front of a mirror.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
You set out the classic argument for the Art II language and I will have to think about it during the baseball game to see if it has any weakness.
As for Andrew Jackson’s parents it may be that they were considered citizens at the time of his U.S. birth.
Until a persuasive record of our founder’s intentions on this issue is established, it is quite a bit easier arguing against NBC requiring two citizens parents than for the proposition.
The alternative, of course, is that any illegal entrant can drop a baby on our side of the border, the baby could grow up in his home country and then return at age 21 to qualify 14 years later as president.
Keep your eyes peeled, more is to come. Soon I hope, I need to get my final done! LOL
An argument could be made that a child born of two parents ILLEGALLY in the US would not be a citizen of the US. In the US v Wong Kim Ark case referenced up-thread, part of the decision had:
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.If illegal aliens are considered invaders, then their children do not accrue citizenship by birth. Indeed, during Pres Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, massive numbers of illegal aliens were forcibly sent back to Mexico, INCLUDING THEIR US-born children, indicating that US officials at the time did not consider birth in the US from illegal aliens as conferring citizenship.
Thank you. So much is happening...
“LOL WAAAAAAAY off. I am not in Washington.”
I’m sorry; Newberg, Oregon. So I was “WAAAAAAY off” to the tune of...25 miles. How embarrassing that I should suggest you contact law professors in the next state over.
So here you are, the University of Oregon law faculty: http://www.law.uoregon.edu/faculty/fulltime/ They’re so close you could practically visit the campus on a lunch break.
“And yes I have consulted lawyers, and all of them are a lot more of use than your posts to me have been.”
I know you’ve contacted “lawyers.” You work with Leo. How many legitimate legal experts have you tried to contact, and what percentage of them have agreed that Obama is not eligible?
“Because I admit I am not a lawyer doesn’t give you the ammo to pop off and assume I have not contacted any.”
I don’t assume you haven’t contacted any law professors because you aren’t a lawyer yourself. I assume you haven’t done so because you’ve never claimed to have done so, nor have you identified any who agree with you. If they *had*, you’d be crowing about that, so the absence of that means either that you didn’t contact any, or that you did but they all disagreed with your legal conclusions.
“If I choose to use them as sources in an article I will let you know. Savvy?”
Sure. But like I said, you can contact all the law professors you want; I feel comfortable in guaranteeing that they’re all going to tell you you’re wrong. That’s why I don’t expect you’ll be using any as sources; if they tell you you’re wrong, you’re just going to ignore them. Like another Freeper who recently told me that if the Supreme Court *itself* ruled that Obama was Constitutionally eligible, then he’d just conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong.
If you can't actually articulate the difference, then there is no difference. Precedent is defined, at least in English dictionaries, as "a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule" and "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations." Authoritative means the same thing as decisive.
My brief response: precedent is an element of a prior decision that may or may not be binding upon future courts.
This is fascinating that you just make up your own definition to salvage a losing argument. As shown in the definition above there's no "may or may not be binding" written into the definition.
A decisive ruling (your term) can likely be defined as a final ruling by a court that has considered sufficient evidence supporting the legal and factual issues presented by the parties.
"Decisive ruling" is NOT my term. It was introduced in this thread by Conscience of a Conservative in post #30.
Such rulings are generally binding locally but subject to review by local upper courts. Such a ruling by the USSC, as here, is generally honored by a subsequent USSC via the doctrine of stare decisis.
Ummmm, dude, you're defining legal precedent, as is shown here:
) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case." The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisisYou can see how this fits in if you acknowledge Minor was not faced with the question of whether plaintiff was an NBC but was satisfied for the purposes of its ruling by the fact she was a citizen.
link
You're not listening. The plaintiff argued she was a citizen specifically through the 14th amendment. That argument was rejected BECAUSE she was a natural born citizen. The court did this to make it clear that the 14th amendment had not created a NEW right to vote based on a NEW method for determining citizenship, because the OLD and ONGOING method of determining citizen (i.e., natural-born citizenship) did not come with an inherent right to vote.
We have to stop somewhere, so I will stop with this: Read Lockwood closely and you will see it is not of much value. Unfortunately, it does not say "In Minor this court held....an NBC is one born of two citizen parents".
No, what you're missing is that the justice who wrote this decision also wrote the dissent in WKA in which he specifically cited Vattel's definition of NBC that is used verbatim by the Minor court. Second, you're also missing that the citizenship criteria characterized as natural-born citizenship in Minor was held to be as much in effect SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as it was before. This effectively means that persons who fit the definition of NBC are EXCLUDED from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Both Minor and WKA cited this citizenship criteria to define NBC in order to satisfy what the term meant as it was specifically used in Art II Sec I. IOW, it's a specific definition for a specific term related to a specific function in the Constitution. Further, it was a self-limiting definition. If it wasn't decisive nor a legal precedent, then the courts AFTER Minor would have no reason to cite how the definition was used NOR to stress that V. Minor's right to vote was negated because she was born in the country to citizen parents. It IS a precedent and it IS decisive.
WKA had nothing to do with citizen parents, quite the opposite.
No kidding. By giving the definition of NBC, the WKA decision was following a legal precedent. It was unable to declare WKA to be a NBC, so it did not do so.
Nonetheless, I would agree Minor and WKA are of great persuasive value.
It's more than that. The definition was given to satisfy the meaning of a Constitutional term and was used in BOTH cases to reject citizenship claims. That IS a precedent.
We certainly agree with that language. In fact, it is the basis of an argument I presented to a “law professor” a couple of years ago here on FR.
Essentially, if they enter illegally, fraudulently tap into our commercial and economic system and avail themselves of public benefits, school, medical services and the casting of local, state and federal votes, etc, one could easily imagine they are invaders as contemplated by the WKA language.
My disquieting alternative proposition above, of course, is based on the very real present state of the practices and policies of the State Department and some local law enforcement agencies and municipalities.
I have not had a chance to put your responses in the aicd rinse yet, and may yet get back to you.
Have nice weekend.
Your characterization of WKA and the last sentence in your post illustrates your continuing confusion.
You have spent what must be close to two hours preparing your various posts to me. For the most part, in those posts you bob and weave or mischaracterize or ridicule my argument. You ask me to support my assertions and when I do you brush them off.
Let’s face it, it is not productive and I am not a masochist. At the risk of repeating myself, we are done.
Thanks, you too.
The only confusion is yours, which is compounded by nonsense accusations about spending two hours to prepare my posts or brushing anything off. You would serve yourself better to read rather than to post on this topic.
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.