Posted on 11/01/2011 11:14:02 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
Not that there's much point to it, but you might not be aware of this.
You presume to educate me, and I doubt I can educate you. Not that there aren't things you don't know, but rather the obstacle is getting you to face those things which you do not know. I perceive you as the sort who will simply refuse to learn them.
The Supreme court in 1898 made an error in law. The Dissenting judges were correct. The Majority was wrong. Your opinion, and that of others like you is one of the resulting consequences of that mistake.
Absolutely! There are male citizens, and Female citizens. Two kinds, like you said.
This point needs to be hammered into their brains. It shouldn't be hard, there seems to be nothing in their to stop it. :)
And this is the most appropriate rebuttal.
This case proves "the court" can be absolutely wrong. Do you not agree? I'll take your silence as a "yes."
.
Now that we have established that "the court" can be absolutely wrong, why do you keep citing them as though they constitute irrefutable proof of something? Normal conservatives have a greater distrust of the courts than trust in them.
There are different types of naturalization: individual and collective; voluntary and involuntary. Obama, for example, IF he can legally prove he was born in Hawaii would fall under involuntary, collective naturalization.
Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.
The key is "in the law." Natural-born means "without law" ... it is a type of citizenship that does NOT depend on law to make it so. This is what the court explained in Minor v. Happersett. Natural-born also means "without doubt." Other types of citizens at birth come WITH doubts that must be resolved: whether a law or constitutional amendment applies; whether the place of birth qualifies under U.S. law (such as through collective naturalization); whether a child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (which the SCOTUS said in Wong Kim Ark is based on the parents having permanent residence and domicil); whether a child born outside the U.S. meets the residency requirements for himself or his parents; or whether other statutory definitions are satisfied, etc. With natural-born citizens, there's no need to satisfy a subject clause or statutory definition: born in the country to citizen parents is simple, authoritative, universal and with no doubts.
Except the law doesn’t require citizen parents. I think it should, and clearly lots of people on this thread think it should, but it doesn’t. If Rubio ever does decide to run, he could lawfully do so. That’s just how it is, and no amount of hyperbole is going to change it.
I’d like to see a citizen-parent requirement, not so much for candidacy rules but to finally deal more effectively with the anchor-baby problem. I don’t think the founders ever contemplated such an issue at the time. The founders were trying to stop any immigrant, after the revolution, from becoming President. Their concern was that the King of England might send agents to immigrate to the U.S. to try to become President— effectively nullifying the revolution. So they said immigrants can’t run.
That’s all this is about.
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.