Posted on 03/17/2010 7:18:45 PM PDT by thecodont
03-17) 16:59 PDT Santa Ana, Calif. (AP) --
A California attorney who leads a movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship plans to run for secretary of state in November.
Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley said Wednesday that Orly Taitz, a leader of the so-called birther movement, has qualified as a candidate.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/17/state/n165903D92.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0iUTY3TFi
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Oh, Sure. Hide behind technicalities.
No thanks parsi...not buying your parsing. Enjoy yourself.
I plead “pre post hoc quad ulterioritis erat sum cogito pro spawnum quid pro rata immigratum anchorum” which translates to:
But the Eastman article was written in 2006, about anchor babies, WELL BEFORE the other stuff, and so in discussing it, I could not possibly have any ulterior motives.
parsy, who is glad he knows Latin!
If Taitz and 70s retread Jerry Brown are both elected, Sacramento will become the bat capitol of the world, since we’ll have a moonbat Governor and a dingbat Secretary of State.
lol. I know, I know.
Wong decides only that a child born in the U.S. of parents (who are citizens of another country but) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. and are there carrying on business (and not representing the home country in a diplomatic or official capacity) becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the U.S (note the absence of NBC in this finding).
The Wong decision does not stand for the proposition that the newborn of border jumpers immediately become citizens, and under no reading does it bestow on the babies of aliens the higher Constitutional form of citizenship (NBC) required of only a single American, the President.
You get the last word between us.
parsy, who can read English but chooses to disregard plain meanings of the language.
Oh, she finally found the elections department?
You are both right and wrong. At the beginning of the opinion you find this language:
“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. . .”
That question was answered in the affirmative.
To get to the answer, the Wong court first reviewed the meaning of those terms, such as “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” from the Constitution, and “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from the first clause of the 14th Amendment.
It is the review of those terms, the review of the history of the law, the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U S Constitution, that transcends the Wong decision. It is the language and the reasoning that gets cited in subsequent cases. Look at the holding. As you cited it in the first paragraph of your reply. Does it say anything said about the children of soldiers of invading armies? No, it doesn’t. Yet nearly all people agree that the children of parents consisting of invading soldiers are not natural born citizens. Why? Because that is what is in the language found in the decision above that point. Just like the stuff I provided earlier.
Look again at the Wong case. Go to the very last sentence of the decision:
“For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Look at the last section, 3 to 5 paragraphs, depending on how you look at it. There are no “reasons” there. That comes from all that language “stated above” that I have already provided.
If it did not, the application of Wong to subsequent Courts would be limited to someone who is of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth, etc. etc. etc. Yet, clearly that is not the case. Wong has been cited in over 1000 cases. I would bet that most of these have nothing to do with persons of Chinese descent. I will show you a recent such case further down so you can be sure I am not lying to you.
You should already have some innate clue that this is true. The “anchor babies” are not just a figment of someone’s legal imagination. They are anchor babies because they are born here in the USA. Their parentage matters not, unless they fit into the 2 exceptions. That is the reasoning in Wong.
Now, the November 2009 case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
But, lets look at this recent decision in a little more detail. Remember, this is from the November 2009 Indiana case. It is not binding on any Federal court, but the reasoning is probably what any court will follow. In essence, someone made the equivalent of your argument. The Court sent them packing.
The Plaintiff’s Argument (based on Vattel and other non-Wong stuff):
“Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)
The Court:
“Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”
That’s it. Real simple. All the other stuff you may read is crap that is either knowingly or unknowingly splatted at you. It isn’t the law. In the real world, lawyers do not sit around and endlessly debate the meaning of Wong. It may take up some pages, but it is not that hard a case to understand. If you are born here, and do not fit into the two exemptions, you are a Natural Born Citizen, and you can grow up to be President, even if both your parents get deported back to Mexico.
parsy, who says that is why they call them “anchor babies.”
She may be flaky, but she sure got a lot of Dunn’s past out into the open, didn’t she?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -
| Emphasis added. It seems to me that being born on US soil is enough to qualify for natural born citizenship, if we're to fall back on the history of English common law, at least that's what the Supreme Court ruled. Correct? I should point out at the beginning that this includes new research, especially regarding US v Wong Kim Ark ... As attorney and law expert John W. Guendelsberger pointed out in 1992 regarding US v Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. at 653): “In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” – see US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874). However, a closer look at this “reference to English common law in existence at the time” used in Wong Kim Ark includes the somewhat dicey and contemporary use of A. W. Dicey’s 1896 edition of “Conflict of Laws”. Dicey’s 1896 version of “Conflict of Laws” is the primary reference used in Justice Gray's discussion regarding “Natural Born Subject” in Gray’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark Majority Opinion. Significant portions of this language that Dicey used in his 1896 version of “Conflict of Laws” (referenced in the 1898 US v Wong Kim Ark) disappeared in the 1908 and subsequent versions of Dicey's book. Further, it would appear that as the years moved on, Dicey’s respect for the wisdom of "Blackstone’s Commentaries" seasoned with time. Fast forward from the 1898 Kim Wong Ark Opinion to 1932, when an older and wiser A. W. Dicey himself wrote, “To any critic of Blackstone, as to any student of English law, I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.” Of course, this would include the US Constitution, ratified in 1789, influenced by "Blackstone’s Commentaries". Just five years later, the Congressional (Senate) Library purchased its only two books of the 18th Century: "Blackstone’s Commentaries" and Vattel's "Law of Nations":
Although the famed Wong Kim Ark case itself is referenced dozens of times by subsequent US Supreme Courts, Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has only been referenced EIGHT times in ALL of the searchable US Supreme Court Opinions on record. In fact, the last time Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” was referenced by the SCOTUS was in 1964 BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA v. SABBATINO, 376 U.S. 398, nearly 46 years ago. That's very telling of the US Supreme Court's use and confidence of Dicey’s late-19th century book in their Court Opinions. By comparison, "Blackstone's Commentaries" is considered to be one of the chief standards used by today's Roberts Court in interpretation of common law, searchable thousands of times in prior Supreme Court Opinions. Most recently, "Blackstone's Commentaries" was referenced nearly 20 times in determining the Framer's meaning of “keep and bear arms” in the 2008 DC v Heller Opinion.
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I might as well just repost old posts for all that has already been answered since you like to go around circles.
My part on this thread is about “Anchor Babies” and immigration. Unfortunately, I can not respond to anything you say about the “other stuff”.
If you wish to discuss anchor babies and immigration, I will be glad to respond.
parsy, who has no choice in this matter
All the stuff in Wong, and every other citizenship case, about “natural born citizen” is dicta. Not necessary to the finding in the case. The finding in Wong was that he was a citizen, under the terms of the 14th amendment. Not that he was a “natural born citizen”, since that was not at issue in the case. He merely wanted to be able to remain in the US, hold property and vote, not become President.
Fixed it. Period.
I think we have gone over the “dicta” argument on other threads. The language is there in Wong and courts are relying upon it. You may find this article interesting. It was written in March 2008, and titled “Indians and Invaders”.
It discusses Wong and how the revisionists try to overcome the 14th Amendment and Wong by the ‘allegiance” arguments. This is one you may to printout and keep. It discusses the concepts of “invaders” as applied to illegal immigrants. The footnotes are fun, too. I like the part about the criminal defendant who uses for his defense the argument he has not accepted the jurisdiction of the law.
parsy, who says even the Heritage Foundation has to admit the language in Wong is “broad.”
Of the 14th amendment.
John Bingham,the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Of course the real intent was to make former slaves citizens. Period. All else is "side effect".
Obama's father owned allegiance to the Queen of England... the current one at that.
It did not need to determine the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen". It quoted some earlier cases and such, some which defined it, some of which did not. But the ruling itself, did not turn on the definition of Natural Born Citizen, and thus all that is mere dicta. Part of which supports the notion that their is distinction between the "child of an alien born in the US, and the Natural born child of a citizen. Each is as much a citizen, but their is a distinction. Just as there are Constitutional distinctions between those "naturalized in the US" and those naturalized at birth outside the US. Or so the Supreme Court has said on more than one occasion.
I can not respond to any statement regarding the President and issues related to his eligibility. I can only address issues related to immigration and “anchor babies” on this one. Sorry.
FWIW, Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898 and that was 63 years prior to the birth of the person we can’t discuss. So, that leaves the immigration issues wide open. I would note that Bingham spoke in 1866, 32 years before Wong, so that anything Bingham had to say would be less than relevant to “anchor babies.”
parsy, who is behaving himself
The language and reasoning is still there. For proof, I again offer this case. Note that they base the decision upon “guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark.”
“Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Remember this was decided in 1898. While they had typewriters then, it was not fun to just spin out irrelevant words for the heck of it.
IF you are correct, why are courts relying on Wong? Do you seriously thin the whole legal world is just delusional? The only part of this that is hard is the part where some NBC’s are born OUTSIDE the country. That is interesting. This part is kinda dull and settled.
parsy
Get lost troll. GET LOST!
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.
