Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn't actually make the same conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.

The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn't follow this so-called "guidance." Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??

For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

They're claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn't there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It's there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It's not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay's letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.

The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It's saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can't be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:

... the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.

A) This isn't true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there's nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they "contemplate" something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means "to consider at length." IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.

Then Ankeny says this:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”

Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.

Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn't say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.

Here's another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

That's all well and good if we're trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn't about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.

It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.

Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.

Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can't seem to get the facts straight:

As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States ....

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren't arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:

Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”

Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:

The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11

11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.

Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don't seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the "ninenteenth century congressional debate" citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey's "Conflict of Laws" .... how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court's interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn't have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.

27 posted on 01/10/2012 2:38:24 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

Thank you very much for your reply in specifics. I just wonder why these guys didn’t appeal it? Was it they couldn’t afford attorney’s?


29 posted on 01/10/2012 3:15:33 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson