Yeah. We know only too well you and your ilk will.
Posted on 06/19/2012 4:29:13 PM PDT by Drew68
Hasn’t been argued in court ~ all the cases cited have other issues that took them to court ~ but this wasn’t one of them
Au contraire, the 14th Amendment is just like any other man-made statute, but the Constitution makes it harder to overturn. The 14th Amendment doesn't bestow anything of the kind or could it make a person a natural born citizen at birth. It does however create a law that makes citizens at birth, but they are not natural.
Maybe you should send your legal understanding about natural born citizens to the OBot lawyers since they ignored the Florida judge yesterday to cite 'authority' that makes Obama a natural born citizen. It's no wonder why they did not. LoL.
I really wish they would take this up as well. My hope would be that they would feel that natural born would naturally flow through the parents - where allegiance lies in no other place but the country of their parents.
I believe if you have allegiance with another country then you would not have just one countries interest at heart!
Do you understand why many of us feel this way? I am natural born and my heart is only with this country. Rubio on the other hand has a deep conviction to his parents country. That is a problem!
Of course I would have to live with the decision of SCOTUS if it ever gets in their hands. Lower circuit courts I have no confidence in and do not agree with their determination on what Natural born actually means. They are not constitutional judges and are easily bought!
I think I’ve lost faith in this country! :(
More recently his running dog lackey, Lt. Governor Bolling, lost his argument that we should hold another primary that he can trick. Cucinelli won, so we'll have a convention.
We won't need to let any Democrats in to vote.
Should be interesting.
In the meantime the penalty for Romney for letting his loonie bin loose in Virginia is we will probably see Obama win this keystate while the Republicans sweep every other office.
The definition of 2 citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen makes sense to me..... especially considering the historic constitutional context. This was even taught to me in my high school civics class. At the time, there was no doubt about the definition. It is interesting to note that the only place in the constitution where the phrase “natural born” is mentioned is article 2 section 1 dealing with the qualifications of the office of US President. My opinion is further enforced by minor..... BUT I will concede that I am not a lawyer. And I will agree at this point, we need the SCOTUS to chime in do their duty and clarify the issue using today’s language. I am confident that in the end, the 2 parent requirement will be upheld. BUT whatever the court decides, I will accept the issue as settled. At this point I consider it almost settled.
Don't worry, you're not the only one who was taught this. I remember it too.
They're hoping we'll all die off.
I like Rubio, he's my Senator and early on, I was an ardent supporter of him in the VP slot. However, I'm starting to think that he might not yet be ready. I think he needs some further polishing to become the statesman that he certainly has the potential to be. Furthermore, after Obama's recent coup on the immigration issue, Rubio has become a bit polarizing with some of the comments he's made and positions he's taken. In an election this important, we can't afford to have the VP pick saddled with controversial positions that might further alienate certain segments of voters.
Finally, I'll concede this eligibility thing. While you and I know that Rubio is perfectly eligible for the office, if as many as five percent of (thoroughly misinformed) voters out there see Rubio as ineligible and refuse to vote for him, this is going to be a big problem for Romney.
This being said, If Romney picks Rubio, I'll support the ticket enthusiastically (as I will regardless of who Romney picks).
“”””””While you and I know that Rubio is perfectly eligible for the office, if as many as five percent of (thoroughly misinformed) voters out there see Rubio as ineligible....”””””
Are you so sure? I think even Chester Arthur disagreed with you. After the assassination of President Garfield, he assumed the office of Presidency. He knew he was not constitutionally qualified. That is why he went to great lengths to hide the fact that at the time of his birth, his father was not a US citizen. He even lied about his his own date of birth! There is no argument that Chester Arthur was born on US soil. So the reason he lied about his parentage and date of birth is because if the treue facts were known, he would not be considered a NBC. And he knew it.How about you?
“Maybe you should send your legal understanding about natural born citizens to the OBot lawyers since they ignored the Florida judge yesterday to cite ‘authority’ that makes Obama a natural born citizen. It’s no wonder why they did not. LoL.”
I’ll wager $100 to Freerepublic that the Florida judge will figure it out without needing any other lawyers to point the law out. With or without, the judge will read WKA and rule accordingly.
The US Supreme Court has already been clear on the issue. Like every other state to examine the issue, Florida will back my interpretation of established law.
Care to bet?
LoL. You are always consistently wrong. We're still waiting for the Obama or his lawyers to cite that Supreme Court case that makes Obama NBC. Don't hold your breath.
Care to bet?
I'm not going to take a bet when the judiciary has been nothing but collective cowards on this issue. They never push Obama or his OBot lawyers to prove their cases but dismiss on technicalities, although, the Klayman case may be a different story. As the OBot lawyers cannot seem to follow a simple order to cite "authority" that Obama is a natural born citizen. You may have noticed, if you're truthful with yourself, that the courts have not truthfully weighed in if Obama is a natural born citizen. They do nothing but evade.
And no, as usual again, Gray's opinion in Wong Kim Ark never ever bestowed Ark as a natural born citizen but only a citizen.
Please do us a favor and read the constitutional requirement for president below and find out what the founders meant when they said added natural born citizen to their requirement. (There is a clue for you in the statement that a president could be a mere citizen only at the time of the adoption of the Constitution 200+ years ago.) Then you will better understand why your comment lacks understanding.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
From paragraph six of Article Two: "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
Does the word "or" have meaning to you? More importantly, what meaning has the SCOTUS attached to it? You do not get to decide what the constitution means. For better or worse, that is the purview of the SCOTUS.
“LoL. You are always consistently wrong.”
Actually, I’ve been right on 100% of my predictions.
“You may have noticed, if you’re truthful with yourself, that the courts have not truthfully weighed in if Obama is a natural born citizen. They do nothing but evade.”
You mean like this court opinion from Indiana:
“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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]
a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too
were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Or this one from Georgia:
“For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President BarackObama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”
Pass on both options, my vote belongs to me, not the GOP. That makes it very likely that I will just be canceling your vote, so suck it up and take it like you think we all should.
Romney will not receive on vote from my household..
Not that Obama has proven his case that he is a natural born citizen. We know he has not.
You mean like this court opinion from Indiana:
I knew I should have mentioned that pile of pooh in my post above, but I knew that you would poop it out.
We are still awaiting the OBot lawyers to cite that "history making case" in a major case. The Florida case would do, but Klayman should eat it for breakfast and lunch. LoL.
That silly case has been taken apart more than a hyperactive kid playing with a tinker toy. That has to be the most disingenuous case in Indiana law history. The case is so full of crap that it stinks from sea to shining sea.
It cites Chester Aurthur was Pres, and since he got away with his lies, therefore it implies that he's a natural born citizen. LoL. Complete logical fallacy. Or it cites some obscure immigration case because some Carter appointed judge thinks and ("believing" the illegal alien's lawyer no doubt) without citing any legal authority that makes his illegal alien kids natural born. LoL. It's nothing but a clown case and anyone who has an understanding of Ankeny v. the Indiana governor knows that, except you.
Furthermore, Ankeny totally misconstrued and I'd say dishonestly misrepresented Minor. I quote,
“Thus, 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.”
Nooooo Ankeny you foolish judges. The Supreme Court did not leave open the question. Completely false.
The Minor Court avoided the question to “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents.
However, they avoided that question by directly construing US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 the natural born citizen clause, and by doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.
That's a called a 'court holding' as it was instrumental to the Supreme Court Minor's opinion. Not like all the bunk we get from OBots who love to cite Wonk Kim Ark dicta and misconstrue even that. LoL.
There are so many holes in that idiotic Indiana Ankeny case it resembles Swiss cheese shot by buckshot.
Or this one from Georgia:
That Administrative GA judge was way over his head and by citing Ankeny, he did not know what he was talking about or he took the easy way out.
Like I said above, and we all do know it, the US judiciary have been cowards on this issue of natural born citizenship.
Seems fair.
Mr. Wildcat seems to take the approach of throwing much at the wall and hoping it will stick just enough to discourage those still looking for real information. Recourse to original sources is a more efficient approach to refuting the nonsense. First, dismiss any reference to state courts. They often say whatever they feel the law ought to be, and have lifetime appointments, no matter how many times they get reversed by appeals courts, including the final appeals court. And they know that few pay attention to the law anyway. Just look at that joke of a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court known as Ankeny. It gets cited by other federal judges, who know better than to cite Supreme Court precedence such as Minor, to dismiss candidate eligibility cases. Incidental or not, two of the federal judges who cited Ankeny were Muslims. Was it Taquia?
Read the decision, just the end, of Wong Kim Ark and you'll see that Mr. Wildcat is, probably intentionally, blowing smoke. Wong Kim was made a citizen - not natural born, but native born, like Obama, to alien parents. Justice Gray cited Minor v. Happersett and quoted Chief Justice Waite verbatim.
The 14th Amendment was properly called a “Naturalization Amendment”. It only produced naturalized citizens. Wong Kim Ark's legal source is the 14th Amendment.
Finally, the author of the 14th Amendment was unequivocal. Congressman, judge advocate of the Lincoln Assassination, John Bingham told the house:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Read the oath sworn to by every citizen naturalized by our State Department. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” This oath is based upon the 14th Amendment. How could anyone interpret this to permit a child to inherit citizenship from an alien parent? The meaning of naturalization is what insures that naturalized parents can inculcate allegiance in their offspring. Many of the children born to naturalized citizens understand our foundations better than natural born citizens (all of whom must also be native born - born on our soil). Until recently, my naturalized friends clearly knew more about our Constitution than I did.
With Obots facts are irrelevant. Correcting them in no way implies that they will not repeat the misinformation in their next comment. But since Obot Wildcat has continued with the same theme, let it be clear that the Constitution was explicitly written without definitions of common terms, whether common language or common law. That way politicians could not use the naturally occurring evolution of language semantics - meaning - to reinterpret the ideas. The foundation of the Declaration and the Constitution was clearly stated - "... to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.." based upon natural law which the framers considered eternal. England's laws were created and executed to protect the King and his subjects were there to obey his proclamations. As Dr. David Ramsay explained in his elegant “Dissertation on ... Citizenship” from 1789.
About Citizens and Subjects Ramsay said:
“The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty.”
Dr. Ramsay, one of our presidents between 1776 and 1787, and our first Congressional Historian, also explained:
"Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.
The Obots will no doubt continue to talk among themselves with the goal of drowning this most cogent thread in irrelevant citations. On many threads they continue the dialog with each other, using the usual name calling and citing obscure and irrelevant references, probably to make the whole exercise seem silly. Don't waste your time trying to debate them. They only want to quench the rational discussion, and will repeat the nonsense many of us have been debunking for going on four years. Read original sources, or read the rebuttals to all these claims in the archives of either Leo Donfrio’s or Mario Appuzo’s Natural Born Citizen blogs.
Your response is predictably juvenile and has established nothing to refute the point of what I said. Exactly what I was describing in my last paragraph - personal insults (”Obama troops”, questioning honesty and motives, etc). Declarations by the U.S. Supreme Court and other legal precedents and rulings are not “irrelevant citations” just because they don’t fit with the grossly incomplete arguments you have presented.
Your comment about Wong Kim Ark case does not appear to be accurate - the Court cites Waite’s comments as just one of numerous of other cases and commentaries on what makes a citizen a citizen - the very long narrative contains multiple citations of commentaries / rulings and common law understandings that natural-born means those born within the realm - and cites more U.S. cases than I cited above in the narrative which make that exact declaration that the phrase natural-born in the Constitution is that of the English common law. I also do not see that appearing in the closing remarks where the final ruling is made as you claimed - it is much, much earlier in the text. Actually it would appear that although they do make references that there is no indication he has renounced his loyalties to the country (which is an obvious reference to the extensive discussion in the natural-born / common law sections of the narrative), the court does not actually make a declaration that he is ‘natural-born’ (nor does it say they are making a distinction of him being ‘native born’ as you claimed)...it appears their only goal was to establish he had the right of citizenship one way or the other as the case was about him being declared a noncitizen.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
“The loonies who think that Rubio doesn’t qualify are out in force”
Their posts are equivalent to the AIDS denialism threads that occasionally pop up. Wish there was an efficient means on FR of ignoring such post pollution.
Yeah. We know only too well you and your ilk will.
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.