... except that Gray never says "natural-born citizen/subject" whether interchangeably or in tandem.
To the contrary, Gray devotes an entire section of his opinion to putting these concepts side-by-side. He even cites with approval from a case calling NBS and NBC "precisely analogous terms." One can only imagine the mental processes that you go through to keep denying the obvious.
fact, the only time these two are cited is to show that they are DIFFERENT.
So you think that when Gray analyzes NBS and NBC as "precisely analogous" terms you think he's emphasizing how they are different? Are you serious?
You are either dishonest or you lack basic reading comprehension skills. There's no other way to explain how you can miss a point so badly.
You're making my argument for me. Gray doesn't touch even touch this delusional crap with a 10-foot-pole. If it was compelling and had ANY legal precedent, he could have quoted it verbatim.
So in opinion you already critique as being too long, you here try to argue Gray should have quoted more from Sandford's lengthy opinion? LOL. You are desperate to come up with a semblance of a coherent argument on any point.
Gray refers to the matter of the birth status of children of alien parents being "elaborately argued" in Lynch and cites to the case three times. This is no doubt one of the many reasons the dissent found the majority opinion made someone like Mr. Wong presidential eligible.
One point that eludes you, since you apparently have no legal training or experience, is that a judge normally won't cite another opinion which contains reasoning or a conclusion fundamentally odds with the judge's reasoning. (Sometimes a court will cite such a case, but then takes pains to limit the earlier opinion to a specific point. In WKA, Gray doesn't indicate any issue with Lynch.)
Instead, he simply says Lynch was one of the cases that went the FARTHEST in declaring children born in the U.S. as citizens.
Again, you can't read. Gray makes the point the "ancient and fundamental" jus soli rule wasn't even challenged until 1845, and then cites the "elaborately argued" Lynch case to show it roundly affirmed that rule.
Nonsense. The dissent agreed with the basis of making persons into citizens under the 14th amendment except those whose citizenship was limited by treaties that said otherwise.
There's nothing in the majority opinion that made Wong Kim Ark eligible. Nothing.
There are many things in the majority that indicate that. I'm pointing them out to you. You just insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand so you can pretend those things aren't there. In your simplistic analysis it seems so long as there isn't a statement that spoon feeds it directly to you a la "we declare Mr. Wong is a natural born citizen," it will remain a mystery to you to explain why the dissent sees the majority's opinion as compelling that conclusion.
It's only "harmonious" when you ignore that Gray recognized that NBC is exempt from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
This is yet another of your erroneous talking points. I've corrected you twice already on this point. You keep ignoring the correction. Here it again:
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
* * *
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it 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.
Note the part where Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ("these words" referring to "the words" of the original constitution including "natural born citizen") "EXCEPT insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . ." So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen." Deny this as you may, it's still true.
Gray connects the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment directly. He says latter provides definition to the former. So your claim is incorrect. But I'm sure you'll keep ignoring this correction. You are adept at that.
You're resorting to circular logic. The U.S. voters don't determine 14th amendment citizenship.
As just shown, the 14th Amendment birth clause ties into the Article II NBC clause. But we all know as to eligibility that NBC is the key phrase. On that there are but three possibilities for determination: 1) We the People (the voters), 2) the Electoral College/Congress or 3) the Courts. As to President Obama, all three have determined he is a NBC.
They, like the rest of your list simply took any claims at face value and assumed Obama qualified without Obama providing any legal evidence to show he qualified.
Given there were no doubts being raised about his eligibility by Congress, the media, nor even his Democrat or Republican rivals, why shouldn't the voters take at face value the statements attesting to his birth status? What would be the voters'reason for doubt? That a few internet cranks and malcontents keep pounding the table in objection? That's not much of a reason.
In fact, his own website dispute this idea by saying his citizenship at birth was governed by British law.
It was also governed by U.S. law since he was born in the U.S. As to eligibility, U.S. law governs. Not British law. Most voters could understand that much, even if you can't.
That doesn't say "natural born citizen. Do you not know how to read??
So you're reading the "same rule" statement to mean that Gray is claiming that under our original Constitution every person born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born subject?? How you make the arguments you do while keeping a straight face is beyond me. That is absurd and laughable. The Constitution refers to NBC's. He can ONLY be read to be saying that the "same rule" under our Constitution was that every child born to alien parents was a natural born citizen.
He didn't say that natural born citizen must be interpreted in the light of the common law.
I've quoted above (again) the specific text where he says what I claimed. Read it.
This quote shows that these are DIFFERENT terms entirely.
Ummm, right. Calling the terms "precisely analogous" means in your mind "these are different terms entirely." Dishonest. Dense. Delusional. So hard to settle on one adjective here.
Rhodes was quoting Shanks v. Dupont, which said: " . . . the treaty deemed them citizens."
So here you skip past the portion of Rhodes Gray actually quotes and jump back even further to quote a portion of Shanks Gray doesn't cite where Shanks is discussing an England-U.S. treaty which obviously has no relevance to Wong. And you think you are making a relevant point . . . how?
Your total cluelessness as to how Judge's draft opinions and how properly to read them makes further dialogue here pointless. You just grasp at whatever straw is handy, toss that up, and think you've made an argument.
The problem is that "precisely analogous" does not mean "exactly the same."
Since I'm not arguing for equivalence, there is no problem. But the terms have a corresponding meaning with the respective systems: a child born in the US is deemed "natural born" in the way corresponding to the rule by which a child in England was deemed "natural born." So just as a child born in England to alien parents was a NBS, the same rule here was that a child born to alien parents was a NBC.
This is simple. But I think your problem here is you have no clue what an analogy signifies. It means a similarity between two sets of things. In saying they are "precisely analogous terms" Gray is signifying a similarity between the birth rule as to NBS and NBC. In your stupdity you keep asserting Gray finds them dissimilar. Until you correct that basic error you will never grasp what Gray is saying.
And Gray acknowledges in Part V that there is a very specific definition of "natural-born citizen" is NOT precisely analogous. You have no way around this. A unanimous Supreme Court decision is binding.
I don't need a way around it. I need but observe that the Minor court didn't involve the question of the birth status of children of alien parents and so therefore the Minor opinion doesn't purport to say whether such are or are not NBC. You're trying to argue the Minor court made a definition as to a question that it expressly said it wasn't answering. Your position is legally absurd.
So in that way I deflate your argument entirely and just keep walking straight ahead.
You, on the other hand, only have a badly played game of connect the dots, a vivid imagination
Except that the dissent in WKA, Ankeny and the Obama cases since all connect the dots in the same way. (A shocker, isn't it, that all those with a legal education come out the same way here, while you end up in a different spot?) The attempt by you, the legal layperson here, to personalize this and claim I'm misreading the cases comes with "FAIL" stamped all over it.
Your arguments were defeated. What else would need to be said?
To the contrary, Gray devotes an entire section of his opinion to putting these concepts side-by-side. He even cites with approval from a case calling NBS and NBC "precisely analogous terms." One can only imagine the mental processes that you go through to keep denying the obvious.
If it's so obvious, give a DIRECT quote using these exact terms were they are put side-by-side. The only thing that was "precisely analogous" were the terms "citizen" and "subject." The rest of this is your desperate imagination playing a dishonest game of connect-the-dots.
So you think that when Gray analyzes NBS and NBC as "precisely analogous" terms you think he's emphasizing how they are different? Are you serious?
Absolutely serious. You're not being honest because Gray does NOT analyzed NBS and NBC as precisely analogous. You're creating an argument based on a false premise.
So in opinion you already critique as being too long, you here try to argue Gray should have quoted more from Sandford's lengthy opinion? LOL. You are desperate to come up with a semblance of a coherent argument on any point.
No, I didn't say this at all. Focus. I said if the part of Sandford's opinion on NBC was compelling, Gray would have quoted it verbatim. He clearly avoided doing this in any shape or form.
Gray refers to the matter of the birth status of children of alien parents being "elaborately argued" in Lynch and cites to the case three times.
He cites "to the case" but he avoids citing any verbiage from the case. Calling it "elaborate" doesn't mean anything. He also cites to Minor and cites FROM Minor verbatim on an exact definition of NBC. One of these has legal precedent. The other does not. Do you understand which one??
One point that eludes you, since you apparently have no legal training or experience, is that a judge normally won't cite another opinion which contains reasoning or a conclusion fundamentally odds with the judge's reasoning.
You're making my argument for me. This explains why Gray does nothing more than paraphrase the Lynch ruling instead of giving any full citations.
Again, you can't read. Gray makes the point the "ancient and fundamental" jus soli rule wasn't even challenged until 1845, and then cites the "elaborately argued" Lynch case to show it roundly affirmed that rule.
This doesn't help your argument. The Lynch case is NOT persuasive or compelling. When Gray says that the rule wasn't challenged, all he is saying is that he doesn't have much to go on in order to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen. It's why he continues for pages and pages and pages trying to build a justification. Second, he cites a New Jersey case that completely contradicts the conclusion in Lynch.
There are many things in the majority that indicate that. I'm pointing them out to you. You just insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand so you can pretend those things aren't there. In your simplistic analysis it seems so long as there isn't a statement that spoon feeds it directly to you a la "we declare Mr. Wong is a natural born citizen," it will remain a mystery to you to explain why the dissent sees the majority's opinion as compelling that conclusion.
No, you're trying to connect unconnected dots while ignoring that Gray deferred to the Minor definition of NBC and that Gray tied it specifically to Article II in the Constitution. He could not use that to make Ark a citizen, so there's no way he could make Ark a natural-born citizen. All natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens. That's a problem for you. You're trying to conclude the latter when the Ark decision says the opposite, that when construing the 14th amendment, it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
Yes, this is true. Nobody disagrees. The Constitution uses these terms, but when construing the 14th amendment it the birth clause, it does NOT define nor redefine natural-born citizen. Gray admits this when he cites Minor.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Read this. It does NOT mention the term natural-born citizen. It does use THIS term from the previous paragraph "citizens of the United States." The Constitution defines "citzens of the United States" in the 14th amendment. It does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen."
False. Gray explicitly said the opposite. Read this:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Do you understand now?? Can you be HONEST now?? In one paragraph, Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these terms except in how "citizens of the United States" is defined in the 14th amendment. In a negative declaration, he says that when the 14th amendment was construed, it did NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. That specifically states the opposite of what you want to believe.
Gray connects the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment directly.
Only to say the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Here it is again ... a DIRECT quote:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.As just shown, the 14th Amendment birth clause ties into the Article II NBC clause.
You didn't show that at all. I showed the opposite.
But we all know as to eligibility that NBC is the key phrase. On that there are but three possibilities for determination: 1) We the People (the voters), 2) the Electoral College/Congress or 3) the Courts. As to President Obama, all three have determined he is a NBC.
This is a circular conclusion. Neither nor voter nor the electoral college has done anything to determine Obama to be an NBC. The only courts to make this conclusion have done so on a basis that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous rulings on eligibility.
Given there were no doubts being raised about his eligibility by Congress, the media, nor even his Democrat or Republican rivals, why shouldn't the voters take at face value the statements attesting to his birth status?
Because ignorance is no way to conduct an election.
What would be the voters'reason for doubt? That a few internet cranks and malcontents keep pounding the table in objection? That's not much of a reason.
Self-delusion and willful ignorance is not a reason to ignore Supreme Court precedents, and labeling people as cranks for providing irrefutable legal precedent serves no one any good.
It was also governed by U.S. law since he was born in the U.S. As to eligibility, U.S. law governs. Not British law. Most voters could understand that much, even if you can't.
No, the Supreme Court cited a treaty that says those whose citizenship is under British allegiance are governed by their laws in terms of natural-born status. And second, Obama has never provided any evidence in a court that his birth was governed in any form by U.S. law. Most voters would understand that, even if you can't.
So you're reading the "same rule" statement to mean that Gray is claiming that under our original Constitution every person born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born subject??
Gray cited the ruling that supports this.
How you make the arguments you do while keeping a straight face is beyond me. That is absurd and laughable. The Constitution refers to NBC's. He can ONLY be read to be saying that the "same rule" under our Constitution was that every child born to alien parents was a natural born citizen.
The Constitution doesn't say everyone born in the U.S. ware NBCs. It says that Constitution was formed by "We the people of the United States" for "ourselves and our posterity." This doesn't say the children born of aliens are somehow NBCs. "Ourselves and our posterity" means citizens and the children of citizens. It does NOT include subjects and children of subjects born in the U.S. That's why Gray has to defer to the allegiance quote: those born in the United States under the allegiance of the crown were natural-born subjects, not natural-born citizens.
So here you skip past the portion of Rhodes Gray actually quotes and jump back even further to quote a portion of Shanks Gray doesn't cite where Shanks is discussing an England-U.S. treaty which obviously has no relevance to Wong. And you think you are making a relevant point . . . how?
I didn't skip past Rhodes. I explained for your benefit what Rhodes was referring to. Rhodes says, "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." First, this isn't talking about persons born in England. It's talking about people born in the U.S. who are still in the allegiance of the crown. These people are natural-born subjects and NOT natural-born citizens. It's an either-or proposition. You can't be both. Under this proposition, Obama is a natural-born subject. The "rule of common law" makes people born in the U.S. of persons born with allegiance to the crown into subjects of that crown and NOT NBCs.
.... a child born in the US is deemed "natural born" in the way corresponding to the rule by which a child in England was deemed "natural born."
This simply is not true. Gray cites a case where children born of aliens were not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless the parents had NO allegiance to their home country. This means that not only were the children not natural-born citizens, but that the 14th amendment wouldn't come into play until they satisfied this criteria. We already know the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be NBCs.
But I think your problem here is you have no clue what an analogy signifies. It means a similarity between two sets of things.
Your problem is that I DO know what analogy means and that you're argument is based on trying to make these terms completely equivalent and not just analogous. I have no problem with saying that NBS is "analogous" to NBC, but they are not defined the same way, and I've shown this in multiple ways using explicit language and direct quotes to support this fact.
Except that the dissent in WKA, Ankeny and the Obama cases since all connect the dots in the same way.
The dissent defines NBC the same way as Minor:
Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Ironically, Ankeny tries to downplay Vattel as an 18th century treaty that "conflicts" with the court's interpretation of NBC, but the ONLY direct interpretation Ankeny gave is from the Minor decision, and they say exactly what Gray said:
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.
Second, Ankeny admits that Wong Kim Ark did NOT declare Ark or anyone else to be an NBC on the basis of birth to noncitizens:
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 ...
Now, YOU'VE tried to make the argument that Wong Kim Ark ties the 14th amendment to defining NBC in Article II language, and the Ankeny court clearly said it did not. They weren't so stupid to insist that there was ANY legal precedent to support such an idea, and it explains why Ankeny did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC. Any court that did so on the basis of Ankeny or Wong Kim Ark has no legal precedent behind it. NONE. Instead we have a clear definition of NBC from Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. s opinion on NBC was compelling, Gray would have quoted it verbatim. He clearly avoided doing this in any shape or form.i