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
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.
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.