To: DJ MacWoW; RoadTest; wintertime; Yosemitest
55 posted on
01/27/2016 6:38:00 PM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
To: philman_36
The Constitution, in
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is the ROOT of that LAW.
AND .... IT IS A LAW
DEFINING the rules of CITIZENSHIP and NATURALIZATION.
So try again, LOSER !
"If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born.""
That's a very bad '
STRAW MAN' MIS-DIRECTION.
It isn't even close to what that law is.
A definition of the rules, is not the same as a RESOLUTION declaring a SPECIFIC PERSON a Citizen.
For REFERENCE. see:
111th Congress (2009-2010), S.RES.225.ATS, which states: "Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State. ... Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961; ...
Resolved,That the Senate recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State."
and also 111th CONGRESS, 1st Session,H . RES . 593, which states:"Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State. ... Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii; ...
Resolved,That the House of Representatives recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
56 posted on
01/27/2016 7:05:44 PM PST by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: philman_36
Also READ:
Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen
Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.
But the fact is, they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.
And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” — he was ALSO “natural born.”
If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.
The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact foundthat Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.
Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.
But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.
There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.
But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.
Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”
Note that again:Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”
The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:
“Plaintiff claims thatPresident Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supportsthat President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
So your statement that
"natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !
57 posted on
01/27/2016 7:07:54 PM PST by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson