Posted on 09/06/2012 12:35:47 PM PDT by kreitzer
That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. My position is that the Courts are not GOD. When they are incorrect, I will say so. When there is an error in their facts or reasoning, they don't get to be factually right just because they have power. In order to be right, you have to first be correct in your facts and reasoning.
The courts are often wrong. I find this condition of the courts to be completely unremarkable. I can say with a great deal of confidence that every time the court sides with the Liberals, they are usually wrong. Roe v Wade is an example where the court's facts and reasoning are so ridiculous, that even honest liberal legal scholars say the decision is utter bullshit.
Being able to ram your decisions down unwilling throats is not the same thing as being "correct", unless you subscribe to that philosophy of "Might makes right." What were you saying about defending our constitution?
Do you even listen to yourself?
Reassessing my thinking is a constant effort in my life. I dare say I do better at it than do you. Reassess your own thinking. I will provide you with information that will help you see a more correct understanding of the issue. One with out paradoxes (No citizenship for slaves or Indians) and absurd results. (Anchor baby Presidents.)
Presuming that you are a conservative, read this column from George Will, then tell me *HE* is wrong. Call *him* an idiot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "
Unless you were an Indian.
Funny how your theory has ANOTHER BIG F***ING HOLE IN IT!
““Sir I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
I have [the honor] James Monroe”
Pretty odd of me quoting a letter instead of trying to invent a reason...I'll never make a birther if I simply state the facts!
"Who else would dare?"
Anyone? Remember, it was Madison who argued:
"“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
John Jay? Are you serious? Get a grip! People say many things. He’s your proof? I say you are a jerk, does that make me an authority? Make comments on the cititations I have made on previous posts from AUTHORATIVE judicial contributors.
You are a loser as I’ve said before - your lamp has no fuel. LOSER!!!!!! Give it up!
Foreigners are people NOT BORN in the USA until they are naturalized but they are not NBC’s. How can you not comprehend? Are you insane or just stupid on purpose? BORN IN THE USA = NBC you moron!
George Will is not saying that Obummer is not NBC. You have serious reading comprehension!
When the courts are incorrect then we have carte blanch to just disregard the ruling? What world do you live in?
As of today, there is no court that supports your position.
Let me give you a bit of advice, if you disagree with judicial ruling, run for Congress, try to enact legislation that supports your view and let’s see what happens.
To understand Scalia’s position on this, it may be helpful to review his recent interviews where he describes the realists’ interpretation of the founding documents.
Cite one.
I went to grade school in the late 1950s to early 60s, and I learned that "anyone born in America can grow up to be President."
Your own evidence rules YOUR crapola out! Thanks, I never saw this. The state of NY says "All persons born in this state and domiciled within it except children of transient (and diplomatic) aliens are citizens."
I take that to mean that resident aliens bestow upon their children citizenship and that means natural-born citizenship. NY by excluding transient/diplomatic aliens will help us not honoring anchor babies….an issue I was ALWAYS against.
Aliens who are here legally and reside here can produce NBC children as WKA affirms; that would make Rubio NBC! It also makes OBOMA NBC because his father was not a transient but a resident.
You should look up the word “transient” in the dictionary and you will find: “One that is transient, especially a hotel guest or boarder who stays for only a brief time. Remaining in a place only a brief time: transient laborers.” Foreign soldiers would also fall into this category.
The loyalists suffered greatly here in the United States. Many of them ended up fleeing to Canada because of the discrimination they faced from those who backed the U.S. Others went back to England.
Am I to feel sorry for these loyalists? You are all over the place! Makes no difference to me how they suffered but in the language of the Constitution, they were still eligible to run for president if they had citizenship.
The salient point which you do not have the wit to comprehend is that Mr. Madison is arguing a Jus Sanguinus claim for his citizenship.
Madison went on to vouch for Mr. Smith’s family AFTER he established the fact that birth on the soil confers citizenship….the law of the U.S. This was a trial and Madison was testifying FOR Smith. By adding family lineage doesn’t take away from the fact that he was still NBC without that family lineage. If people are here legally and make domicile in U.S. (as proven by your NY info) their children are NBC. Case closed for you.
“The country where one is born, how accidental so ever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations there out growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.”
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
Was Wilson referring to New York when he states:
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.”
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
Or was he lying? You say you know history but you certainly don’t understand plain English. Wilson’s comment contains no ambiguity.
But we're not talking about Indians, slaves, Chinese or whatever. There are some exceptions for pete's sake, the mention of which just clutters up the debate. My point is you do not need citizen parents to be considered NBC in MOST cases!!!!! You take the opposite stance and that is where you are wrong. Mark Rubio, for instance, the son of Cuban immigrants meets every qualification to be VP or president if and when he chooses to run. You cannot make a valid argument against that. You try but you fail. You think you get the better of the debate because you have such a high regard for your intelligence but your lamp is running on empty!
““Sir I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
Which if you are correct, is the same as saying they are presenting nothing new. The trouble with your theory is it fails to explain why he was identified by our Ambassador as an English Citizen, because our Ambassador already HAD THIS INFORMATION.
The Birth and Baptismal certificates presented in the first place already PROVED he was born in South Carolina. They weren't good enough according to Congressional Delegate John Armstrong.
Pretty odd of me quoting a letter instead of trying to invent a reason...I'll never make a birther if I simply state the facts!
You keep stating IRRELEVANT facts. No, you'll never make a knowledgeable person on this issue if you keep stating irrelevant facts. Why was James McClure ARRESTED? Answer that question.
Anyone? Remember, it was Madison who argued:
"“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
Madison wasn't referring to "Anchor baby" birth. He was referring to birth to longstanding members of the community, as he describes further. He is obviously in context referring to "birth" within a community.
Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
You put more stock in the subsequent opinions of judges than in the men who CREATED THE LAW? The Federal Judiciary DID NOT EXIST until the founders CREATED IT. You have the ranking of authority exactly backwards. You sir, are the idiot.
You are a loser as I’ve said before - your lamp has no fuel. LOSER!!!!!! Give it up!
Give up conversing with an ignorant moron perhaps, but I'm not going to give up spreading the truth in spite of your attempts to obfuscate it.
Blah blah blah. An idiot writes further. Calls more intelligent and more knowledgeable people morons.
Not at all. I simply overestimated your intelligence. I couldn't conceive anyone would be so stupid as to miss the obvious point. George Will doesn't refer to Obama at all, he refers to the class of people of which Obama is a part. I would show you a Venn diagram, but I don't think you would comprehend that either.
Is George Will wrong? Tell me that George Will is wrong.
When the courts are incorrect then we have carte blanch to just disregard the ruling? What world do you live in?
No idiot, we have a duty to point out that they are wrong, and then work to overturn their wrong decisions.
As of today, there is no court that supports your position.
And so this proves they are correct? The Volksgerichtshof made unanimous legal decisions too, but that didn't make them correct. The entire world once thought the world was flat. They were also wrong, despite being unanimous. The Courts are IGNORANT. (As the title of this thread proves.) Beyond that, they don't want to touch this anyway.
Let me give you a bit of advice, if you disagree with judicial ruling, run for Congress, try to enact legislation that supports your view and let’s see what happens.
When you demonstrate the least bit of competence and some level of comprehension, I might be interested in your advice. As you currently appear to me to be a mouthy fool, I think your advice is less than useless.
You can't explain Indian citizenship (Because it doesn't fit your theory) and You can't explain the Law New York passed denying citizenship to aliens. (Because it doesn't fit your theory.)
You end up with a cognitive disconnect because you just can't deal with facts that completely contradict what you wish to believe. Your response?
Ignore difficulties, and hope they go away.
The please tell me what "half a foreigner" meant when Thomas Paine wrote it The Rights of Man in 1792. Were they half-born somewhere else?
-PJ
Cite one.
Okay. Here goes.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine.
(8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
And here's another.
When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship.
(See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)
I went to grade school in the late 1950s to early 60s, and I learned that "anyone born in America can grow up to be President."
Obviously you received a substandard education.
The British government at the time would have had no problem with claiming McClure as a British subject - a point that rejected and went to war with Britain over a short time later.
The Ambassador either was being cautious or was simply WRONG, as made obvious when he received a letter directing him to take action based on McClure being born in the US. Given that we went to WAR over the issue, perhaps his caution was understandable.
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.