Posted on 09/20/2010 1:33:21 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
More ignorance. "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that four challengers did not have legal standing to file suit to try to overturn a 2002 redistricting plan imposed by a judge. .. The four citizens had argued that the judicially imposed plan “violated the [Elections Clause] of the U.S. Constituiton by depriving the state legislature of its responsibility to draw congressional districts.”‘ In rejecting the citizens right to bring the law suit, the Supreme Court said that private citizens lacked standing to bring such suits, only state governments can sue over redistricting matters." If the Supreme Court can affirm a lower ruling that person do not have standing, then this can also be a reason NOT to take a case. My points stands: There's NO EVIDENCE the Supreme Court reviewed ANYTHING beyond standing arguments.
The Preamble to the Constitution is not law. Its an introduction to the law.
Sorry, but this is easy to shoot down. "Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence."
The rest of your diatribe on the eligibility cases does nothing to disprove Minor's defintion of NBC. You say, "The ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution rendered Minor v Happersett moot and that includes the dicta in the decision that Edge119 likes to continually quote." Maybe you need to tell the 9th Circuit court, who citied Minor in 2008 and 2009. "See also Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U.S. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874) (confining the right to vote to men)." link to MUELLER v. AUKER
What law? This law: Title 8, Chapter 12, ...
This law is naturalization law. Congress only has the power of naturalization, and can only write naturalization legislation. While the law includes several types of of 'citizens at birth,' they don't presume to give all such citizens Constitutional eligibility for the office of POTUS.
If the definition of natural born citizen is embodied in common law and is extra-constitutional, why are you trying to use “Minor v Happersett” which is based on settled law, the 14th Amendment?
You're not paying attention. Minor does NOT base the definition of natural born citizen on 'settled law' NOR on the 14th amendment. In fact, it avoids doing so, quite purposefully.
1) BHO dba POTUS father was born in Kenya and died in Kenya as a Kenyan.
“Do you concur with this conclusion?”
In almost every particular.
I agree that the teachers know it was them in the photo, and that other circumstantial evidence supports the conclusions that 1) the photo is real, and 2) the child is Obama. I now think it highly likely that the Bamtard did go to Kindergarten in Hawaii.
However, I still think those teachers are lying their nitwit-leftist-skank asses off when they say they remember him.
-PJ
“So when you are shown a photo of yourself as a child and you look at it, it doesn’t bring back memories of the circumstances surrounding what you are looking at?”
Yes, it brings back memories of *my* circumstances. However, it does not follow from that that looking at one of many class photos will spark a teacher’s memory of one particular child among so many.
When I look at my junior high photos, I remember only the names of two or three closest friends. When I look at my boot camp photos, I remember only the name of the recruit company commander (DI, to those in other branches). In short, my experience tells me that it’s much more likely for a student to remember a teacher’s name than vice versa.
More ignorance. “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that four challengers did not have legal standing to file suit to try to overturn a 2002 redistricting plan imposed by a judge. .. The four citizens had argued that the judicially imposed plan “violated the [Elections Clause] of the U.S. Constituiton by depriving the state legislature of its responsibility to draw congressional districts.”‘ In rejecting the citizens right to bring the law suit, the Supreme Court said that private citizens lacked standing to bring such suits, only state governments can sue over redistricting matters.” If the Supreme Court can affirm a lower ruling that person do not have standing, then this can also be a reason NOT to take a case. My points stands: There’s NO EVIDENCE the Supreme Court reviewed ANYTHING beyond standing arguments.
The rest of your diatribe on the eligibility cases does nothing to disprove Minor’s defintion of NBC. You say, “The ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution rendered Minor v Happersett moot and that includes the dicta in the decision that Edge119 likes to continually quote.” Maybe you need to tell the 9th Circuit court, who citied Minor in 2008 and 2009. “See also Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U.S. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874) (confining the right to vote to men).” link to MUELLER v. AUKER
Yes, it brings back memories of *my* circumstances. However, it does not follow from that that looking at one of many class photos will spark a teacher’s memory of one particular child among so many.
When I look at my junior high photos, I remember only the names of two or three closest friends. When I look at my boot camp photos, I remember only the name of the recruit company commander (DI, to those in other branches). In short, my experience tells me that it’s much more likely for a student to remember a teacher’s name than vice versa.
I'm not confused about anything. I've stated twice there's no evidence the Supreme Court has reviewed anything beyond the arguments of standing. While you might try to insult my intelligence, you haven't shown any evidence to prove me wrong. The ball is in your court. You have to make an actual argument. Since you don't; the obvious reason is you can't.
Nothing above changes the fact the Minor v Happersett was a 14th Amendment Women’s suffrage appeal.
You said the decision was rendered moot and that it was no longer good law. I've responded by showing you a very recent citation of this decision by the 9th U.S. circuit court. I destroyed your point. There was no argument over was the case was about. Further, your response does not change that Minor was cited in WKA for its definition of NBC.
Of all the idiotic things that you have posted on Free Republic this is perhaps the most idiotic.
Translated: "I can't beat edge919's argument, so I better start calling his arguments idiotic -- TWICE -- so maybe it will make me sound like my head isn't lodged up my ..." Did you not read what you posted. The title to that section is "Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization." It IS a naturalization act that declares collective circumstances of citizenship at birth.
That’s nice, but constitutionally irrelevant. Since Minor is not “stare decisis” according to you, the current Court is wise to continue to ignore it as precedent.
There's some heavy duty spin. I didn't say anything about Minor not being stare decisis. I showed where a circuit court just cited it last year, and then clarified that its definition of NBC was not based on statutory law or the 14th amendment.
I’m not confused about anything. I’ve stated twice there’s no evidence the Supreme Court has reviewed anything beyond the arguments of standing. While you might try to insult my intelligence, you haven’t shown any evidence to prove me wrong. The ball is in your court. You have to make an actual argument. Since you don’t; the obvious reason is you can’t.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The section of the US Code that pertains to citizens at birth does not pertain to the process of naturalization and you know it but you don’t have enough character to admit that you were dead wrong.
Again, what part of “Natives and Citizens of the United States at birth” are you too stupid to understand?
“and it was known that the student attended Noelani Elementary School where you taught in 1965-1988, that still wouldn’t jog your memory?”
No. Not to the point of remembering a long forgotten student.
No. Not to the point of remembering a long forgotten student.
“You’d be surprised at what having taught a famous person does for one’s memory.”
Or perhaps for one’s imagination.
Or perhaps for one’s imagination.
Thank you for proving my point. See that wasn't so hard.
You “destroyed” nothing. The issue in Minor v Happersett was women’s suffrage not natural born citizen status as applied to presidential candidates.
It doesn't matter what the issue of the case was. Minor told us this definition of natural born citizen pertained directly to the presidential requirements listed in Art. II Sec. I.
Since Bararck Obama has been President of the United States for a year and 9 months, that fact “destroys” your silly argument.
Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy via circular logic. And who the hell is Bararck Obama??
The section of the US Code that pertains to citizens at birth does not pertain to the process of naturalization and you know it but you don’t have enough character to admit that you were dead wrong.
Sorry, but it is IN the Chapter title to the Code: CHAPTER 1-NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. The only person without any character to admit being wrong is YOU.
“Thank you for proving my point. See that wasn’t so hard.”
It's too bad you're not honest enough to admit that I never said what grounds the appeals were rejected on at the Supreme Court. I only said that there was no evidence that the Court looked at anyting OTHER than standing and only that the lower courts rejected these cases on standing. You proved me right. So thanks for teaching me I was right all along and that you were full of gravy.
It may not matter to you but it has obviously mattered to the more than 100 state, federal and US Supreme Court judges and justices who have looked at this issue and have not found legal precedent in “Minor v Happersett.”
You are certainly fond of logical fallacies. Can you show me the 100 citations where these courts specifically looked at and rejected Minor's defintion of natural born citizen??
Barack Obama?
No, I aksed you about Bararck Obama, who you mentioned in the previous post.
What part of “NATIONALITY AT BIRTH...” in your own reference above don’t you understand?
The part where you disgracefully leave out 'collective NATURALIZATION.' Care to explain why you leave it out??
Me too.......this really is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
Hillary almost got it right.
” I remember events from the first day of kindergarten”
Apples and oranges. You are remembering *your* experiences. You had *one* kindergarten class. That’s a different kettle of fish from remembering the names of each child in 20 or 30 years’ worth of classes.
It’s too bad you’re not honest enough to admit that I never said what grounds the appeals were rejected on at the Supreme Court. I only said that there was no evidence that the Court looked at anyting OTHER than standing and only that the lower courts rejected these cases on standing. You proved me right. So thanks for teaching me I was right all along and that you were full of gravy.
The sections related to the processes of naturalization are in a different Part of Subchapter 3.
Title 8 of the US Code is the law of the land pertaining to Aliens and Nationality.
Chapter 12 of Title 8 is the law of the land pertaining to Immigration and Nationality.
“Subchapter III of Chapter 12 under Title 8 is the law of the land pertaining to Nationality and Naturalization.
“Part I” of Subchapter III of Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the US Code is the law of the land pertaining to “Nationality at birth and collective naturalization.”
Part II of Subchapter III is the law of the land pertaining to NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION.
You see Edge, there is a difference in the content of Part I and Part I.
Section 1401 under Part I of Subchapter III of Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the US Code is the law of the land that pertains to who shall be considered as “Nationals and Citizens of the United States AT BIRTH.”
Apples and oranges. You are remembering *your* experiences. You had *one* kindergarten class. That’s a different kettle of fish from remembering the names of each child in 20 or 30 years’ worth of classes.
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.