Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Regarding your general level of knowledge and aptitude, I had narrowed you down to either ignorant or stupid.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I thought you were merely ignorant.
Now, after all the information here, the details, names and dates and with this reply to me, ignorance no longer covers you.
Fear not. There may yet be help and hope for change.
Go earn all the conservative merit badges you claim to be working on. The process of actually earning them will be transformative for you. You'll grow and quite possibly overcome your stupidity, something many believe cannot be fixed.
It hurts me to say this to you and about you, but I pity you where you've fallen. Your choice. You've been offered helping hands and refuse to take them.
No, Jeff and Rogers were systematically misstating case law to subvert the constitution.
All SCOTUS case law on this holds that natural born/native requires two parent citizens.
Certainly not as weak as your mind.
Are you birthers a cult? You sure sound like one, especially the way you try and degrade non-believers.
Continue the principled rally against two of the senators leading the way to defund Obamacare.
Your misbeliefs about the Constitution serve you well.
Stand proud, progressive anarchist! Do the Alinsky dance on our grave. Beat your chest and demonstrate the ignorance that subdued us. You have won!!!
You and yours have beat the mighty US of A where no others could have!
Your posts and those you cite in admiration rub our noses in the ignorance that beat us. A fitting farewell to the late great American dream.
I pity you, but I pity us more. I thought Proverbs 16:18 would come for obama and your team, instead it has come for us.
None here either. I had to see for myself though.
Actually, none has. That makes you either incredibly stupid, or a flat out liar. Possibly both, which is my guess.
There has never been a SCOTUS decision requiring two citizen parents for NBC, and a very lengthy and often quoted one saying a NBC can have two ALIEN parents. So this get's back to the question Ha Ha Thats Very Logical posted:
"What would it take to make you decide you’re wrong?" And the only answer I can figure out is "Nothing". I see no sign that you have ANY desire for truth. All you have is bitter anger and hatred festering inside, often spewing out against conservatives.
Some birthers are birthers because they have been fed half-truths and outright lies, and simply don't know what the truth is. But many birthers are nuts. Raving lunatics. Paranoid nutjobs who think the entire country is part of a Great Conspiracy, and that the Great Conspiracy explains why 0 of 50 states, 0 of 535 members of Congress, 0 of uncounted thousands of DAs in America, and 0 out of a few hundred courts agree with them.
Many birthers live in a Robert Ludlum novel, believing themselves to be the few, the happy few, the band of brothers fighting overwhelming odds - "the fewer men, the greater share of honor"!
The rest of us end up living in a much less colorful world, where dark conspiracies aren't the explanation for all that happens. And the courts all live in that prosaic world, where a cigar is just a cigar, and evidence is evidence and sentences have actual meaning.
Mr. Rogers didn’t you get the memo? We are undercover agents of Axelrod...
Fixed it for you.
I would have to side with DoctorBulldog on this and say that a reasonable translation of "sujets naturels," in English, would be "natural born subjects." So technically well, a point for DoctorBulldog.
This is not an academic point. There is an official treaty with France written in 1781, in which the term "natural born citizen" was translated into French as "sujets naturels."
ARTICLE IIILes consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.
I have beaten Mr. Rogers over the head with this point a half dozen times, yet he persists in ignoring it. This is one of the reasons I don't bother arguing with him. Another is that he has very personal reasons for wanting Article II to be interpreted in a specific way. He is an interested party, not an objective bystander.
That you were obviously unaware of this usage of "sujets naturels" also calls into question your contention that you have read everything I have had to say on the subject. Obviously you have not.
And Vattel NEVER mentions "citoyens naturels" (plural) or "citoyen naturel" (singular). Not once.
The words "citoyen" and sujet" are synonyms with the usage "sujet" being the more common. At the time, the only form of government in existence was Monarchy.
Quite a few judges have ruled on the issue of natural born citizenship and presidential eligibility for either the 2008 or 2012 general election.
When people file lawsuits, judges are allowed to issue rulings on their claims.
I don’t know of a court decision since 1874 where Minor v Happersett was ruled to be precedential on the issue of natural born citizenship under Article II, Section 1. No judge has found Minor v Happersett to be persuasive in their rulings for 2008 or 2012.
Judges have cited US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) but not Minor v Happersett.
For example:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
You can't have it both ways Jeff. If the only requirement is being born behind our borders, then you have to accept "birth tourism" and "anchor babies" as legitimate. You do not have a leg to stand on in excluding them.
What the courts would decide, I don't know. I do know what they "would" decide regarding children of legal immigrants, because that is settled law. Such children are natural born citizens.
With this I agree. The Children of naturalized citizens are "natural born citizens. (If born after their parents naturalization.)
I was originally born under one name. I was adopted under another. I have now passed my adopted name down to my children, not my original name.
Naturalization is EXACTLY like adoption. Being born in someone's house doesn't make you a member of their family. Being formally adopted does.
Birthers will just assert that the judge in that case was compromised.
“I have beaten Mr. Rogers over the head with this point a half dozen times, yet he persists in ignoring it.”
Odd. I have repeatedly supported that translation and usage, and have repeated it. Including on this thread, a few hundred posts back.
And in the famous Vattel passage that birthers build an altar to, Vattel doesn’t write “sujets naturels”, and thus was NOT discussing natural born subjects (or NBC). It wasn’t until 10 years AFTER the Constitution that someone screwed up the translation and inserted it where Vattel did not use it...
So, DL, I assume this means you agree that Vattel has no bearing on the meaning of NBC?
And Dr. David Ramsey, who treated battle field injuries of our soldiers during the war, and who also knew Washington and Franklin, and who was also a well known historian of the time, says otherwise. Madison also does not leave his argument at place of birth. His very next point is regarding Mr. Smith's Jus Sanguinus qualifications.
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Madison argues further that Mr. Smith was part of the Community of South Carolina, and when the community renounced their citizenship en masse, Mr. Smith, being a minor was bound by their decision.
The Salient point is that Mr. Smith was not just "born here." He was born to a family long settled and prominent in the community. He was no "Anchor baby."
Nor have they truly studied it. Most of our Legal experts swing from one precedent to another without regards to the underlining principles upon which the previous precedent stood.
I have little doubt that the current widespread belief that being born behind our borders automatically makes you a citizen is the result of a misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark Decision and the 14th amendment. People have somehow conflated the term "citizen" described therein, to mean exactly the same thing as "natural born citizen."
This is demonstrably not the case as illustrated by Justice Waite in the Minor v Happersett decision in which a detailed examination of the 14th amendment has him offering these words.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th amendment says precisely "in words" who shall be a "citizen", but Chief Justice Waite explicitly states that it "DOES NOT SAY" who shall be a "natural born citizen." Ergo, one is not the same as the other.
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874). Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote. SCOTUS rejected Minor’s argument that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
86 posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 3:28:44 PM by SatinDoll
Little barry bassturd is not even constitutionally eligible for the office to which the pirate Roberts swore him in, THREE TIMES NOW! Sorry, you as a member of We The People are no longer sovereign in America, you/we all of us have been usurped by the globalist oligarchs holding the legislators' strings to which they dance. Don't take that lightly.
Was he a citizen of the state of Massachusetts at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
Was he a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
The “grandfather clause” is unambiguous. A citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption is eligible to be President.
Minor is quite clear that to be natural born, or a native, one must have two citizen parents. Wong Kim Arc totally defered to minor, but natural born was not an argument in the case, it was mere discussion. the sole issue for WKA was that the mother was here under legitimate authority, and she was.
You have a valid point. I still believe your hypothetical would have ended up in court, however.
The judge ruled contrary to the decision that he cited.
That shows how little understanding you have of both law and politics. (pima county is the birth place of radical environmentalism, and the most leftist county in the US)
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.