Posted on 06/19/2009 10:27:18 AM PDT by smoothsailing
I guess even a stopped watch gets the time right twice a day.
Mccain is a US citizen by birth, due to the operation of statute law. But he is NOT a natural born citizen. Especially not if you buy the majority opinion in Kim Wong Ark, as you seem so willing to do.
It might help if you read the decision. Justice Gray wrote, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Citizen by birth, citizen at birth, natural born citizen, all are synonymous.
MANY citizens by birth are not natural born citizens, for example, my son, Gerald.
Not being familiar with the circumstances of his birth I couldn't say. But the fact that Congress legislates who is a natural born citizen and who is not changes nothing. The Constitution says Congress will enact uniform rules of naturalization. Logically, in order to enact the laws on naturalization Congress must first identify who doesn't need to be naturalized.
As a result, it is only by the operation of statute law that he derives his citizenship. Ergo, not natural born.
Not true at all.
Second: Almost every argument in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark derives from an “analysis” of English common law. But that analysis is incomplete, deceptive, and duplicitous. Moreover, the entire argument overlooks the express intent of the framers NOT to base our citizenship on the English model.
And where is this intent expressed?
In the Wong Kim Ark case, the minority opinion is logical, faithful to history, and true to the Constitution. The majority opinion is an embarrassment.
Because you say it is? Well thanks for clearing that us for us.
Yes he is, and the Ark case has nothing to do with that. He is a natural born citizen because according to the law in place at the time, birth overseas to parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, makes him a citizen at birth. AKA, natural born citizen.
Fantastic Article Dr. Polarik - Bravo! :O)
I wrote a piece on ole Shepard Smith too - I was amazed at such a stupid/Arrogant statement by him (who should be Fair & Balance).
I really could not figure out the reasoning of such a statement unless he was simply playing up to MSM. But how can that make any sense when employed by Fox News?
Oh well, I guess it was one of those moments when he just wasn’t thinking as it appears he may be a little flippant/impulsive in his personality make up.
For Shitz & Giggles here’s my post on ole Smith.
Almost right, but profoundly wrong.
"...according to the law in place at the time, birth overseas to parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, makes him a citizen at birth." True.
"AKA, natural born citizen." False. The status of "natural born citizen" does not depend on the operation of any statute, and indeed cannot, or a new statute could take it away. Whatever the citizenship status, if it depends on legislation, it is not "natural". "Natural-born citizenship" is a citizenship status that derives from the operation of natural law independently of any statute, and which cannot be removed by statute - or any act of man.
This is the view of the fremaers, and it is the view of the drafters of the 14th, and it ought to be our view if we wish to be true to the Constitution.
One thing I've wondered about, why no blog/bulletin board activity across the conservative spectrum about how many people didn't do their Constitutional duty by properly vetting the man, and documenting the results? Surely someone must have signed off on having seen &/or confirmed chosen1's alleged qualifications. I remember seeing something a couple months ago which had pelosi's name on a certification along these lines.
I would think this would be worth pursueing, because it's not just chosen1's usurpation that endangers the Constitution, but the hundreds of enablers who - if these documents come to light - will be shown to have failed their oaths to protect the same. 2nd thing I worry about, besides the 'birther' tag which is clearly used to denigrate/ridicule those who have expressed this legitimate concern, is that the main leg of the BC group is, "... if he doesn't have anything to hide, why all the money spent on lawyers preventing disclosure of his records?". My worry is that this sounds just a tad bit like Dan Rather's "...there's no evidence to disprove it, either..." meme.
I'm not saying it they are alike, any reasonable reader or freeper will know the differences - but we're opposed by a left which spoonfeeds the lemmings on their sofas, and these are not noted for their reasonableness or common sense. If anything, even this lame a comparison, if delivered on a medium news friday afternoon, would serve to obfuscate the BC effort further.
for my part, I would hope that some kind of effective campaign can be mounted for the 2010 midterms. Absent a revelation of this chosen1's true NBC status, the only path to defeating him is via the voting booth.
JG
Hardly.
The status of "natural born citizen" does not depend on the operation of any statute, and indeed cannot, or a new statute could take it away..."Natural-born citizenship" is a citizenship status that derives from the operation of natural law independently of any statute, and which cannot be removed by statute - or any act of man.
Nor, apparently, is it defined anywhere so 'natural born citizen' apparently means what you want it to mean. Very convenient, but totally impractical and completely at odds with the Constitution which says that it is supreme and not some unwritten law.
This is the view of the fremaers, and it is the view of the drafters of the 14th, and it ought to be our view if we wish to be true to the Constitution.
Recognizing that the Constitution recognizes only two forms of citizenship is being true to it. The idea that there might be three or more classes of citizenship ignores the Constitution.
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.