Skip to comments.Why Wasn't Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?
Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer
click here to read article
Allow me to help you understand. It is not a matter of control it is a matter of your form of responses.
You have demonstrated to others on this thread that you can be rude, obnoxious and intellectually dishonest. In addition, your cut and paste posts along with the use of upper caps and exclamation points are like blaring loud speakers (you may not understand how impossible it is to intimidate most people in an anonymous public forum).
I discovered this about you several months ago when we first exchanged and as much as told you then that I would appreciate it if you would not post to me when I do not post to you. At the same moment, I realize there is not much I can do but ignore you.
(You will be pleased to know that my initial thought was to reply using the words flying doughnut but refrained as it did not seem appropriate for this forum.)
I read it right here on FR. Actually, his association w fogbow has been mentioned on FR for mos, and by different FReepers. It’s no secret. If I found and read the posts, I bet you can too.
It was never unclear. The difference is that I can support my reasoning with a lot more than just one-liners. The characterization of NBC is self-limiting since it is A) applied to a set of circumstances that starkly contrasts with the circumstances the Supreme Court was rejecting in the appellee's argument, B) because of the uncanny resemblence to Vattel's exclusive definition of NBC, C) because of the placement of the sentence in the paragraph, D) because the exact sentence says "as distinguihed from" and E) because the definition and circumstances were affirmed more than 20 years later in a separate Supreme Court decsion. What do you have???
It's one thing to ask about how something is stated, but you've been making several direct and indirect suggestions about how I'm supposed to posted, which started with this:
Would you set out in your own words and in a brief paragraph the points you wish to make in your #52, it would be most helpful for any who may wish to respond.
Followed later by a bizarre response:
re your recent, it is not a reading comprehension problem, it is simply a matter of trying to decide in the time available whether bulky, cut and paste material is relevant.
Note: I didn't say anything about a reading comprehension problem. I had asked what you have trouble understanding. In this same post, you made a bold challenge:
I am confident you will be unable to point to a Minor cite in Ark that is used to support a definition of NBC.
Accompanied with a control statement:
You can have the final word.
Except that I didn't actually get the "final word," because you followed with:
(A suggestion, Edge, you would be more persuasive if you dropped the attitude.)
This is because I questioned your characterization of a few relevant and specific Supreme Court citations as "bulky, cut and paste material." You also questioned my judgment about whether this material was relevant. This means either a) you did not read it, b) you did not understand it, or c) you were trying to dismiss it out of hand as to avoid admitting what it says. Yet, here you are now claiming that I can be "rude, obnoxious and intellectually dishonest." You seem to be projecting your own behaviors onto me. And I understand why. This isn't a winning argument for you. Further, you complain beause I capitalize a few words (which is for emphasis and clarity, NOT for intimidation as you incorrectly presume), and then you accuse me of using exclamation points like "blaring loudspeakers." What exclamation points? I haven't used in any in this thread or the other thread where you were pretending to give me the final word.
I notice you've completely punted the NBC argument now. I will take your deflection and complaints about how I post as a concession on this issue. One suggestion: It's better to post in threads about topics where you have a better understanding of the topic.
What do I have?
But what leads you to believe that this information is actually correct?
Your reality = a whole lot of nothing. Nicely punted.
Truthers tell me the same thing.
Or was the case appealed and the high court refused to hear the case?
Which still leaves you with nothing. Again, nicely punted.
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.
The last time we discussed our opinions of the Founders intent was back in September on this thread:
I simply never went back and answered your question in post #52.
Should you choose to believe that I didnt respond to post #52 because I would have had to concede your position, I suppose theres 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. Theres no integrity. Theres just raw anti-birtherism, same as you would find on any rabid Obot site..., then there really isnt anything more to discuss.
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?
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.
!. 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  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;"
"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.
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.
El Sordo, the person whose zot you are lamenting, BladeBryan, runs a site called thefogbow.com. ... (Thank you, Mr. Robinson, for removing a world-class obot, via the zot received by BladeBryan.)
|WHAT? The 2nd biggest OBOT (after E.S.) - BladeBryan got the zot? I missed it! I would have danced for joy! Thank you JB!|
“I posted to this thread so my answer immediately followed your post with the multiple questions that seemed to amount to the same general idea.
By posting directly to this thread, your question(s), and the entire discussion is immediately available. It’s hard to imagine better context than that.
Well, good luck with your efforts to define conservative rational, common sense, conservative perspective to be what you personally believe.”
You did not answer my question. You answered a question *you* would have posed, and then regurgitated the exact same answers you’d already given up thread. This is all too understandable and too predictable. You couldn’t answer the question I actually posed w’out entertaining the idea that you could be wrong. You can’t do that [on this topic] so you simply misread my question and then answered one I didn’t ask.
Put another way, your answer went far wide of addressing my actual question. I don’t expect you to be able to see that even now. On this subject, those who think foreigners can be NBC simply cannot see the other side of the issue. It’s a systemic blindness. I had hopes you’d be the exception, but you weren’t. Oh well.
Thank you for the welcome.
Have a good week.
Well then it’s a shame about all that wasted time. I went into this discussion based on the premise that you are an intelligent, rational conservative. As such, you should at least be able to understand my position/questions, even if you never agreed w the former. Alas, it was not to be.
Life goes on.
Hope you had a good weekend. You said,
“...but they certain did NOT pass on defining natural-born citizen with an exclusive set of criteria. This is undeniable.”
Actuallly, it has been denied on more then one occasion.
Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma 1968, Maryland Law Review
The only question in the latter [Minor v. Happersett] case was whether a state could validly restrict voting to male citizens of the United States. The answer, since expunged by the nineteenth amendment, was that women could be denied the vote. In his generalized discussion, Chief Justice Waite observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who “were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it.
J. Michael Medina, 1987, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement 1986 Oklahoma City University Law Review
Who is a Natural Born Citizen?
The answer to the above question is, quite simply, we do not know. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.[Minor v. Happersett] Because no case squarely on point has arisen, resort must be had to the basic federal scheme of citizenship. It is only clear that naturalized citizens are not natural born.
And more recently,
Comment by Joseph Hylton, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Marquette University, October 11th, 2011
“To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase natural born citizen is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Courts 1874 decision in that case.”
As to your post 177
I would just point out that when Justce Fuller writes,
“If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens ...”
he is describing the effect of the majority’s conclusion and the majority he is talking about is Justice Gray and the five other Supreme Court Justices who concurred with him.
Gordon: The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The Medina quote isn't very compelling since it mysteriously left out the part Gordon said was unquestionable. The quote from Hylton is a reply to Pamela Barnett after she schooled him on his ignorance ... and it is ignorance. This idiot ignores that Minor argued she had 14th amendment citizenship and that the Minor court REJECTED this argument.
And Justice Fuller cites Vattel for his definition of natural-born citizen in the dissent. He's a terrible example to quote for your ill-founded belief. The part you quoted from him is talking about children born abroad.
You are exaggerating the “unquestionable” statement. Of course it is unquestionable, everyone (obots, birthers, dualers and anyone else) agree that the child of two citizen parents born in the US is a natural born Citizen. It is the case of the child of one citizen parent or non-citizen parents that has not been resolved.
This is what Gordon says in the beginning of his article:
“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.”
No, actually he doesn't say that. He said there are doubts about those born aborad to citizen parents. What you refers can only be citizens through naturalization, either by statute or Constitutional amendment.
Actually, I was referring to his statement on “native-born” being the requirement for President.
If he was born in Hawaii than President Obama is native-born. The remainder of Gordon’s statement is that the only remaining doubt is about those born outside the US, like George Romney.
Under the Minor court, native-born means to be born in the country to citizen parents. Under the Wong Kim Ark court, native-born was revised to distinguish it from natural-born, particularly when the court declared that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. However, this latter court required permanent residence and domicil of the parents. At best, if Obama could legally prove he was “native-born,” he is only a statutory citizen as he doesn’t fit either definition of natural-born or of 14th amendment citizenship by birth.