Wong Kim Ark dissent agreed with majority; NBC is separate from the 14th amendment

Vanity ^ | 02-29-2012 | edge919

[Seizethecarp]

Courtesy of Fogbow:

PA:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83119492/PA-2012-08-28-Kerchner-Obama-Motion-to-Strike-and-Dismiss-Tfb

GA (all of the three MTDs are the same as the Farrar filing):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82998815/2012-02-27-FARRAR-v-Obama-Brief-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss

[Harlan1196]

Do you have any of Leo’s legal writings prior to 2008? I am trying to read as much of his stuff as possible to get grasp on the scope of his legal experience.

[philman_36]

More of the same BS from Jablonski. All he’s saying, basically, is “They’re being mean and I don’t want to play because I have to follow the rules just like everybody else”.

[edge919]

Ankeny made a no call based on connecting dots from Wong Kim Ark’s dicta, but then by footnote admitted there was no legal precedence that makes the children of aliens into natural-born citizens. Marguet-Pillado gives no basis for the assumption that was made on a set of jury instructions. A UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision tends to outweigh an unsourced opinion from a circuit court. And as the Obots say, it has nothing to do with Art. II in the Constitution. In contrast, the Minor decision provided an exclusive, self-limiting NBC definition to specifically satisfy what the term NBC means in the Constitution.

[edge919]

Harlan, see if you can honestly answer this question. If the English common law was adopted in “all states” (except where it conflicts with the Constitution (a key point to keep in mind)), why did the unanimous Minor court not cite the English common law definition of citizenship to define NBC???

[Seizethecarp]

Marguet-Pillado admitted in his first trial (the 9th Circuit remanded for this new trial) that US citizen Marguet who appeared on his Mexican BC wasn't even his biological father. the bio father was unknown when Marguet-Pillado was born on Mexican soil to a Mexican citizen mother.

Marguet-Pillado isn't even an ANCHOR BABY! Great precedent for Barry's NBC status! /s

[philman_36]

I would rather not give them the hits.

I'll continue to use this...@http://www.scribd.com/Art2SuperPAC and look for other sources if it's not there.

[edge919]

Rogers, this even lazier than you’re usual standard. You simply punted the issue and posted a link hoping anyone smarter than you (which doesn’t take much) can find something to refute my post. Find another topic that you actually understand. This is NOT a winning issue for you.

[philman_36]

The dates are on my reply - it exactly the same as my previous answer.
Well look at that, the dates they were amended sure are there. (wink, wink)

What are you trying to get at here?
That you don't know what you're talking about...as usual.

[philman_36]

Can you explain why the fact that WKA doesn’t discuss the war of 1812 has any signifigance?
Why are you trying to change the subject instead of answering my question?

The British Navy only impressed naturalized US citizens - those not born on American soil.
How did the British know who they impressed? Did they make them show a copy of their birth certificate while they were at sea?

[Harlan1196]

Because the issue of citizenship was a peripheral one. It was a voting rights case. And no one contested her citizenship.

Let’s not forget that only birthers consider Minor a landmark citizenship case.

Are you really going to deny all those reception statutes existed?

[Mr Rogers]

I have no interest in debating someone who is either dishonest or hopelessly insane - and you are one or the other.

The link is there, and anyone can read and discover for themselves what the Supreme Court has said about the issue - which is why they wouldn’t take a case in 2008. They have already given a ruling, to any with eyes to read.

[Danae]

Well... I can’t say what Leo would think of it. LOL Shoot, I wouldn’t say if I knew anyway! LOL I have yet to read this particular article... I just saw the ping. I will go read now :). Not that my take on it is worth anything!

[Harlan1196]

So why did states that joined the union decades after the Revolution pass reception statutes?

Alabama became a state in 1819 - why did they adopt the English common law?

Indiana has a reception statute - why did they adopt English common law?

[edge919]

Because the issue of citizenship was a peripheral one. It was a voting rights case. And no one contested her citizenship.

You're not being honest. Virginia Minor claimed she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. That's was her basis for claiming a right to vote. The court rejected that argument.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.

If, as the Wong Kim Ark posits, that the 14th amendment was declaratory of English common law, why did the Minor court not even consider English common law and why did they reject that the amendment conferred citizenship on women (not just Minor). What would be the point of citing a citizenship that doesn't utilize the common law that YOU claim was adopted in all states. And out of a nine member court, why didn't any of them dissent??

[edge919]

All you’re doing is admitting that you don’t understand the issue. Find another thread. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[DeaconBenjamin]

As I mentioned above, if the Founders had adopted the English Common Law's definition of who is a citizen (/subject), they would never have fought the War of 1812, and substantial numbers of them would never have been eligible for the offices they held (see Gallatin)

[Harlan1196]

So the war of 1812 is irrelevant to WKA? Thats all I wanted to know. The post I was replying to seemed to think it was important and it was not obvious why.

[rolling_stone]

[2] No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements. Nonetheless, the government asserts that the requested instruction “was not supported by the law” because “[t]he issue of Marguet-Pillado’s claim of derivative citizenship was decided as a matter of law” in Marguet I. The district court accepted this argument and grounded its decision in the notion that the requested instruction was precluded by the law of the case doctrine.1 Because Marguet- Pillado’s claim of derivative citizenship was definitively decided in Marguet I, the district court believed that the jury could not find there was a reasonable doubt as to Marguet- Pillado’s alienage based on his relationship to Michael Marguet, and therefore, that the court could not give an instruction facilitating that conclusion. In other words, the district court seemed to think that the jury could not reach a conclusion that conflicted with the law of the case.

[Mr Rogers]

If anyone wants to understand the issue, they can read the case and ruling at the link.

You are clueless, which is why your side has lost every case...even when the other side doesn’t show up!