Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
That's simply not true. John Bingham, one of the authors of the 14th amendment, said, "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 ..." Notice, this admits that persons born in the United State of parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty are NOT natural born citizens. The 14th amendment therefore created citizenship at birth for these people that did not previously exist. It wasn't just slaves who benefited from the 14th amendment.
Please cite where they claim natural born citizenship didn't apply to WKA.
First in the definition of natural born citizen and second, by declaring that WKA's citizenship was established by the 14th amendment: "The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'" They're saying WKA is a citizen because as a Chinese person born in the country (there's an intersting oxymoron, by the way), acts of Congress can't trump the 14th amendment. Notice they're not saying WKA is a natural born citizen and in the summary of the decision, they repeat: "... 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." If WKA was a natural born citizen, by definition, there's no need to cite the 14th amendment.
Huh? As far as I'm aware, I don't think Mr. Roger claims anyone sold out.
Aren't you the one who believes Dick Cheney, the entire Republican congressional delegation, and all four conseravtives on SCOTUS sold out?
Rogers made an unsubstantiated claim. It IS HIS BURDEN to prove it, not mine to assume it is true and try to prove it for him. You faithers are terrible at debate. I didn't ask anyone to prove a negative. Rogers says "no legal authority agrees with my interpretation." What part of asking him to prove this claim involves proving a negative??
Circular logic and just plain false. Obama was allowed on the ballot because he made a self-declaration of being eligible. There's no clue as to whether the elections officials realized that a foreign, nonimmigrant father prevents someone from being eligible. You presume to know what they were thinking, when there's no evidence they bothered to examine Obama's credentials. Sorry, but you lose again.
Try reading.
For all but the really, really stupid who are living in the state of Denial
Is that one of the other seven?
If he's wrong, you should be able to cite at least one legal authority that agrees with you. You can't. That means he wins by default.
What part of asking him to prove this claim involves proving a negative??
The fact that you are asking him to prove a statement that contains the phrase "no legal authority."
Off-the-cuff remarks made on the floor of Congress carry no legal weight.
Notice, this admits that persons born in the United State of parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty are NOT natural born citizens.The 14th amendment therefore created citizenship at birth for these people that did not previously exist.
That is simply not true. Free white persons born in the USA of foreign parents, but subject to US jurisdiction, ware ALWAYS citizens at birth, even before the 14th Amendment. From Justice Grey's opinion in Kim Wong Ark:
"That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583."
Edge: First in the definition of natural born citizen and second,
Nope. Nowhere in the entire decision does Gray define NBC so as to exclude US-born children of aliens under US jurisdiction. Strike one.
second, by declaring that WKA's citizenship was established by the 14th amendment: "
False dichotomy. Just becaue the 14th amendment establishes his citizenship does not mean that the common law argument doesn't do it as well. In point of fact, Gray makes abundnatly clear that BOTH arguments are valid. Strike two.
And now for strike three:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
"The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
And just in case you try to weasle out of that by claiming a natural born subject isn't the same thing as a natural born citizen, Justice Gray explicitly affirms that the North Carolina Supreme Court was correct when it said:
"Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; . . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government."
Ahh...so if every state allows Obama on the ballot, it means nothing. They are, after all, just a bunch of idiots who don’t know anything. Unlike birthers, who know the REAL meaning of the Constitution.
And if no Legislature or DA objected, that means nothing, since they are all idiots.
And since no legislature or DA or SecState has, in light of the birther publicity, made a move to prevent someone with a non-citizen father from getting on future ballots, we can assume - traitors? Idiots?
And of course, if no member of Congress objected to the votes of Obama delegates in the Electoral College, it means they just all were not paying attention. Or are they all traitors too?
After all, you can find members of Congress who think Guam is in danger of capsizing, but not one who believes Obama is ineligible based on his father.
Sorry, but my point remains accurate - NO ONE with any electoral authority backs up your interpretation. They all believe Obama’s father does NOT disqualify him.
There's a reason Justice Scalia and other originalists ignore legislative history in their jurisprudence.
~
BTTT.
~
Right. I said that, and YOU followed by talking about a long list of court cases that supports my point. Thank you for taking another one on the chin. What you didn’t do this time is quote the rest of my post that said, “The focus on Obama’s inability to prove his place of birth kept most people from realizing that his parents’ citizenships mattered too.” This undermines your weird argument that I’m trying to blame only Obama or the Democrats for focusing on Obama’s place of birth, although they did. Do you not remember how a pointless mention of Obama’s alleged birth was stuffed in a resolution about Hawaii’s 50th birthday as a state??
The mention of Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace was a political tactic of Congressman Neil Abercrombie who is running for Governor of Hawaii. It was a way to force members of Congress to go on record as to whether they were birthers or not. The vote was 373-0 in favor. So we can assume that there are 62 “birthers.”
........Sorry, but my point remains accurate - NO ONE with any electoral authority backs up your interpretation. They all believe Obama’s father does NOT disqualify him.......
WOW now you are a mindreader along with being a shade tree lawyer! Tell me Mr Mindreader, what happened to Obama’s mamas passport records?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2577941/posts?page=11#11
One doesn’t need to be a mind reader to know that if a Legislature, DA or SecState or Congressman believes Obama’s father makes it illegal for him to be President, that they have the means to make laws or pass rulings that would force a court case.
Since no one does, they are either all traitors, or they don’t believe the birther argument.
Tell me why I should have access to Obama’s mother’s passport records. I kind of like the idea that the US Government doesn’t pass my personal records out to anyone who asks...
They won't till your dead then its free for all. No expectation of privacy at that time. It's the law that's why you should have access. I see your curiosity only extends to things you think support your agenda and nothing that might possibly contravene it. Interesting, See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak No Evil, isn't that what the three monkeys represent?
Well, I’m not dead, so I hope my records ARE kept private. As for Obama’s mother - why should I care about her passport? What does that have to do with anything, unless you believe she traveled halfway around the world to give birth in a 3rd world country...
As for records missing or destroyed - my Dad’s military records are mostly missing - burn up in a fire. That doesn’t mean there was a conspiracy to hide what he did in WW2, Korea or Vietnam.
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.