Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Since most Americans are immigrants and/or are from older generations of immigrant families, I'm still not seeing a compelling reason why anyone would have pursued the father's citizenship as an angle. I'm not sure that anyone would begrudge the timing of the father's citizenship. By contrast, Obama's father was never an immigrant and didn't stay in the United States. Heck, even his mother moved out of the country. You don't see a major difference??
HAVE VOTED WITH HIM,
But six other justices did sign off on an opinion that, without explicitly declaring him so, clearly implies that Wong Kim Ark was a NBC.
Implied don't mean squat - if it isn't explicitly stated in the opinion - then it ain't the opinion.
Ark was ONLY declared a citizen - not a natural born citizen, based on the 14th Amendment.
Why you may ask - I am sure this is the reason ...
Gray wanted to declare ARK as NBC - but the justices who ended up concurring in the opinion balked. They said no - citizen yes, NBC NO !!!
So, Gray was left with a decision - half a loaf (Ark is a citizen) or none (Ark is NBC). He chose half a loaf. OTHERWISE, if the concurring justices agreed, the opinion would have EXPLICITLY stated that Ark was NBC in the last paragraph.
FYI: All of the background cited in the opinion is just that - BACKGROUND. It IS NOT the ruling itself. The ruling IS the last paragraph and states CITIZEN, NOT NBC ...
Because his father was not born in the US and therefore there was a strong possibility that he was not a US citizen at the time of Chester Arthur's birth. If having citizen parents at the time of birth was considered an eligibility requirement, then surely his opponents would have uncovered this.
I'm not sure that anyone would begrudge the timing of the father's citizenship.
Birthers would. According to birthers' theory of natural born citizenship, to be a natural born citizen, one's parents must be citizens at the time of birth. That's why so many brithers have decided to throw Chester Arthur under the bus.
I agree with you that this is stupid theory, and has exactly zero support in the case law and in the writings of the founders, but it is the birthers' theory nonetheless
By contrast, Obama's father was never an immigrant and didn't stay in the United States. Heck, even his mother moved out of the country. You don't see a major difference??
Nope. At least not any difference that's relevant to Obama's eligibility under the Constitution, even according to the birthers' own (incorrect) theory.
It is stated quite clearly, though not in soundbite form.
You obviously have not read the text for yourself, but are instead relying on birther commentary of it. Do yourself a favor and read it for yourself, the whole thing.
Nice strawman, but I have a feeling had Obama's papa become a U.S. citizen and Obama not moved to Indonesia with his second foreign father, skeptics wouldn't care so much. "Natural born" refers to the characterization of one's citizenship, similar to being a "natural born athlete," "natural born musician" or in Obama's case, a "natural born liar" ... meaning that you acquire the trait naturally. With two foreign nationals for father's and a mother who promptly moved out of the United States, Obama has no direct, natural influence from which to become a natural born U.S. citizen. Had his parents stayed together, he might just as easily be the president of Kenya today. His best claim now is because his mother kicked him out of Indonesia to go live with his grandparents. Natural born doesn't result from skipped generations.
Wait a sec. Are you suggesting that a child born to the non-citzen father is not a natural born at the time of birth, but then somehow magically becomes a natural born citizen when his father subsequently naturalizes?
Do you have anything to support this novel legal theory of yours?
You are a freaking idiot ...
SCOTUS opinions begin with a question and end with a decision ...
The question asked [from the opinion] is:
" ... The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ..."
Where in the question is the term "natural born citizen" ??? It ain't there !!!
The decision [from the opinion] is:
" ... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed."
AGAIN - where in the question is the term "natural born citizen" ??? It ain't there !!!
ANYTHING in between the question and the decision is BACKGROUND. Justice Gray could have written in the background that Ark was the King of France - that does not make it so ...
By his own words, Gray limited the scope of the decision to the SINGLE QUESTION as to whether a child born within the United States is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
P.S. - Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid ...
From English Common Law, a person must be born BOTH within the dominion of the sovreign AND under a single solitary allegiance to that same sovreign.
If a person is born whose father had a foreign allegiance and then the father subsequently naturalizes - the person is a citizen, although not natural born.
If that person then has children - born within the sovreign's dominion and under his allegiance, the children ARE natural born.
That is - the son of the naturalized father is merely a citizen, but the grandchildren of the naturalized father are natural born citizens.
I did not get to this in the last post ...
I DID read the Ark decision - beginning to end ... long before your snipe at me, above.
My question to you is - did you read the relevant citations listed in Ark [ALL of them] ??? I did. Calvin's Case, Dicey [British Nationality Act of 1730], Blackstone, etc.
If you claim to have done so - tell me, per Calvin's Case [1608], what conditions a natural born subject is born under. I'll give you a hint - there are three.
Also, per the Nationality Act [1730], tell me under what exception a natural born subject can be born outside of the sovreign's dominion [other than being a child of an ambassador] ???
And, per Blackstone, tell me what a Denizen is ...
Self grandiose or self serving, IAJROTLMAO, and it's the reason you really now need to look at yourself in a mirror???
You must NOT ever have read BP2's response posts to you and also attorney Apuzzo's very detailed information on this matter. They both totally have cleaned your clocks!!!
Self grandiose or self serving, IAJROTLMAO, and it’s the reason you really now need to look at yourself in a mirror???
You must NOT ever have read BP2’s response posts to you and also attorney Apuzzo’s very detailed information on this matter. They both totally have cleaned your clocks!!!
The long-form birth certificate should resolve questions of whether Obama was or was not born in a hospital. If not, then he has some explaining to do as to where he was born and perhaps by whom.
It’s my understanding that Arthur’s father naturalized before Arthur reached majority. By the time most people would know of Arthur, they likely would have known his father to be an American citizen and probably had no reason to think otherwise and thus would not be likely to question his eligibility on the basis of his father’s citizenship. Being born in Canada, however, would be a different story. Obama’s papa, in contrast, never became an American citizen.
Arther helped the intrigue by offering different birth dates for himself and a variety of stories about his mother, who was actually a natural born U.S. citizen. So Arthur's mother and Arthur's birth became the issue, diverting attention from the real eligibility violation. When Arthur was born his father was a minster in the U.S. and his naturalization when Chester was 14 was conveniently buried in the patently false rumor that Arthur was born in Ireland. That could have been the blueprint for Obama’s campaign wherein he has deliberately concealed all sorts of documents to redirect suspicion toward a more easily understood, but false, rumor of his having been born someplace else.
The Alinsky-trained apparatchiks are smart and sophisticated. Their adult lives are spent learning deception and hiding their ultimate goal of overthrowing free enterprise. John Holdren’s colleagues at U.C. Berkeley, those not committed Marxist activism, had no idea that he was spending so much time, or any time, with International Communist groups, or writing for Ramparts (David Horowitz’ and Peter Collier's Marxist monthly). They understand the weaknesses and the strengths of free speech. Rather than study medicine or semiconductor design they become experts in political manipulation, just as Holdren, with a degree in physics from Stanford, never actually did science, but spent decades on 'science policy', leading to a probably more lucrative career funded by Theresa Heinz (Kerry) money, and the faux 'science advisor' position, supporting global warming and green energy to weaken the U.S. for socialist revolution.
Chester Arthur was an earlier example of such manipulation, more in the McCain mold, not driven to overthrow the Constituion, but simply feeling entitled by his class, experience, and education, but with the little problem of having, like Obama, been born of a British subject. At least Arthur's father always intended to become a citizen, and did eventually. Arther found a way to hide his ineligibility - hiding and burning his documents and diverting attention from the real issue, the date of the his minister father's naturalization.
Riiiight. And his opponents were such idiots, that they couldn't be bothered to look up the date of Arthur's father's natuarlization, even though it was commonly accepted in those days that a person's parents had to be citizens in order to be considered a NBC. Is that your story?
LOL. It's fun to see birthers start acting like toddlers when when you prick their precious little theories.
SCOTUS opinions begin with a question and end with a decision ...
Yes, but there's more to it than that. There's all that stuff in between, where the court explains the reasoning behind the decision. And that's where you'll find the court's definition of natural born citizen. If you read it for yourself, you'll find it.
ANYTHING in between the question and the decision is BACKGROUND. Justice Gray could have written in the background that Ark was the King of France - that does not make it so ...
LOL. So according to birther legal theory, everything in the body of a SCOTUS opinion, other than the question and the final ruling, is worthless and has no bearing on legal precedent.
Do I have that right?
Well good for you.
However, you'll forgive me if I will place more weight on the court's interpretation of those cases rather than yours.
The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.
The Wong court disagreed, as does virtually every other constituional scholar alive today.
Okay. Suppose it comes out that Obama wasn't born in the hospital. What then? How exactly does that help the birther case?
Do I have that right?
It is not according to "birther theory" - as you call it. It is according to United States law. If Wong Kim Ark v. United States had settled the question of natural born citizen, ALL of the liberal attornies on cable TV would have cited it as stare decisis - which is Supreme Court precedent.
NONE HAVE - NOR WILL, BECAUSE THE TERM HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED.
Stare decisis: Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true.
Nothing in a Supreme Court opinion except the ACTUAL wording in the paragraph affirming or denying the petition [and the reason(s) therefore] matters.
In Ark, they strictly limited the decision to his citizenship based on the 14th Amendment - which Ark clearly was. As to the natural born citizenship question, basically, they punted.
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.