Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer
As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:
"Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama's eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn't the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.
Whatever you say, good sir.
And another fine punt. Is there an NFL team in need??
Sordo, here is the truth. I have lost too much respect for you even to delve into the issue. It happened several mos ago. I engaged in a very long back and forth w you. The discussion concerned the Framers’ intent re: NBC. I cannot tell you how many hours I invested in that discussion. It went on and on. Finally it got to the point where I asked you the proverbial fifty million dollar question.
You didn’t answer. You couldn’t—not w’out either conceding my position as correct or else sounding like a moonbat. So, to quote Edge, you simply punted.
There is no honesty there. There’s no integrity. There’s just raw anti-birtherism, same as you would find on any rabid Obot site—such as fogbow.
If I were you, I’d be brutally ashamed to be aligned so closely w those who hate conservatism and who especially hate FR. I’ve pointed this out to you before—that your posts are carbon copies of those posted on ObamaConspiracy, FactCheck and fogbow. To echo, note perfectly in every instance, those fanatical Obots bothers you not at all. Weird.
And NO, before you ask, I’m not going back to dig the aforementioned thread up again. It’s in your posts as well as mine; if you want to revisit the question you refused to answer, YOU look it up.
Good day.
The last time we discussed our opinions of the Founder’s intent was back in September on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2772767/posts
I simply never went back and answered your question in post #52.
Should you choose to believe that I didn’t respond to post #52 because I would have had to concede your position, I suppose there’s not much I can say that will change your mind.
If you mean to describe what I tried to write on that thread in posts #46 & #47 as ‘punting’ or “..no honesty there. There’s no integrity. There’s just raw anti-birtherism, same as you would find on any rabid Obot site...”, then there really isn’t anything more to discuss.
Take care.
Mark
Fine. Quote the question, in context, and answer it now.
If Obama is a natural born Citizen of the United States by merely being born in-country does that make his senior adviser - Valerie Jarrett - a natural born Citizen of Iran since that is where she was born?
What is the difference?
If so, do we have a natural born citizen of an apparent enemy advising our President?
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/valerie-jarrett
http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/04/03/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-valerie-jarrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086135/posts
Interesting closing comment in last link above:
“What makes one Iranian?
Born in Iran ? No”
OK - apply that to ‘What makes one American?’. Same thing. Born in America is not being American.
And the following:
“Being born from American parents in Iran and spending a few yrs in American school and mingling with other American kids does not make one Iranian.
Many foreigners, many Japanese, Korean and other foreign staff were in Iran with their family and children born in Iran .. they no Iranian.
Being Iranian means having absorbed Iranian civilization and adapted Iranian mindset.
She no Iranian at all .. Zero Iranian.”
Using this clear logic we could say the same applies to a certain someone and their claim to being ‘American’.
Alert mojitojoe to this troll.
Done.
!. mojitojoe is not a fool
2. I wasn’t referring to you. I never read your comments, just this one as it was addressed to me about someone else.
"Fuller addresses the speculation made in the appeal, but the majority punts this point entirely. "
Actually Chief Justice Fuller was addressing the majority opinion (Justice Gray's opinion). His very first sentence makes that clear.
"I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case." He says their argument is that the Constitutional terms "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States" are defined by English Common Law and cites directly from Justice Grays opinion.
"The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words "citizens of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule
"was in force in all [706] 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"
"that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States."
He interpeted the majority opinion as defining "natural born Citizen" based on English Law. He would rather it be based on "international principles".
"Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction."
El Sicko, don't like it? Feel free to take a hike and now I will make sure to pay extra attention to your posts.
Still bitter and missing your 4x zotted pal NS? Boo effing Hoo
If you don’t like your dirty deeds exposed and your past posts check, tell JR to delete all of your past posts. Since it now your forum and FR leaves past posts, you’re stuck with them for all to see. So you have 2 choices, don’t post or deal with it.
By the way, the only thing you do on FR is defend the Kenyan, not much interest in anything else.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:elsordo/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
“But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.” District Court Judge Morrow in Wong Kim Ark, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.
This was the decision that led to the Supreme Court case.
Every dissent starts with a comment like that. That doesn't make everything that follows a direct reference to something said in the majority opinion. In fact, Fuller says this two paragraphs later and it is NOT expressed ANYWHRE in the majority opinion:
If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States ...He says their argument is that the Constitutional terms "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States" are defined by English Common Law and cites directly from Justice Grays opinion.
I see that reading is not your strong suit. It doesn't say that those terms are DEFINED BY English Common Law. It says that the Constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) must be interpreted IN LIGHT OF English Common Law. Fuller clarifies that they're only applying the "rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality" to the 14th amendment in one of the next paragraphs:
Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.
Like I said.
You’re a fool.
It’s sad, really.
Nevertheless, I wish you a good life.
I was referring to a different new signup troll.
A very nasty one.
Minor may have “passed” on the question of whether children born in the country of foreign parents might be citizens under statutory law or the 14th amendment, but they certain did NOT pass on defining natural-born citizen with an exclusive set of criteria. This is undeniable.
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.