Skip to comments.Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?
Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
No, you didn’t and you still haven’t. You answer that first, and then we’ll move forward.
Instead, it sounds like you’re moving right to snarky. Are you sure you want to go there?
I will repeat my answer for the third time: "Are you trying to argue that because the Court 'only' ruled that Wong Kim Ark was '...at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,' they had nothing to say about 'natural-born' citizenship? That's a disingenuous argument, at best." (emphasis added)
Why do you think I used the word only and placed quotation marks around it? Why did I quote a passage from Wong Kim Ark that only stated "...citizen of the United States"? That was my answer to your question; you simply did not catch it. The Court addressed a question of citizenship. In the process of addressing that question, they clarified the meaning of "natural-born," which is not defined the Constitution, as noted by Chief Justice Waite and plainly obvious to anyone literate in English.
That is why your question is poorly posed. You're attempting to argue that because Wong Kim Ark was not specifically about "natural-born" citizenship, it has nothing to do with the issue of what "natural-born" means. Now, it is you who has not answered one of my previous questions: if that truly were the case, then why did Justice Gray expend so much effort analyzing English common law to clarify the meaning of "natural-born"? If the phrase were irrelevant, then he shouldn't have felt compelled to address it. The take-home point is that Wong Kim Ark, like Minor before it, contains a clarification on the meaning of "natural-born," and while you are free to dismiss it, you cannot ignore that it exists.
Now, if you please, provide a definition on "natural-born," preferably one supported by SCOTUS jurisprudence.
That neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of the Slaughter House Cases, understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign states were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment, is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: 'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.' 'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Still think Justice GRAY 'clarified' the definition of 'natural-born citizen'? In that quote, he is quoting Justice Waite's opinion that those born of two citizens become natural-born citizens at birth.
Interpreting USSC opinions isn't as simple as you thought it was, huh?
BTW, the answer to my question, the question you've been trying to avoid answering, was written by Justice Gray:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
Did you notice that the underlined portion in my answer is from your final italicized paragraph, which I reproduce as follows?
Thank you for proving that I had, in fact, answered your question, and that you simply failed to comprehend it.
And, yes, I do still think that Justice Gray clarified the definition of "natural-born." I reiterate a section of Wong Kim Ark that I previously quoted, as follows, and add its following section for further elucidation:
Wong Kim Ark just isn't in your favor.
Do you think this one is a real example?
So you’ve decided to go snarky after all. Bad decision.
You have accused me of being of limited comprehension more than once. Ironically, you are proving that YOU are the one with limited comprehension.
The reason I continue to say you haven’t answered my simple question is, well, simple. You replied to my question with a question. IOW, you asked me if that was what I was arguing. You were NOT saying that was what you were agreeing to.
Now on to the main thing. Justice Gray, in writing the majority opinion in this case, was building a Proof (you have taken Logic or Geometry in school, haven’t you?) that Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN. He was not building a Proof that WKA was a natural-born citizen.
To that end, he pulled together all of the supportive cases and quotes related to citizenship that he could find. Some were related to citizenship, others to various sub-sets of citizenship - some to naturalized citizenship, some to native-born citizenship, and still others to natural-born subjects. There is even one quote he resorted to that differentiates between natural-born citizens, natural-born subjects, and the native-born. Imagine that.
In none of his Proof was he defining natural-born citizenship, which is a sub-set of citizenship, but rather, making the case for WKA’s citizenship. If he had been trying to define natural-born citizenship, he would have directly done so at some point. He didn’t. Every mention of natural-born citizenship is a quote from someone else.
But you won’t come to that true understanding by pulling selected quotes from the opinion. You have to read the entire opinion at one sitting to comprehend the full meaning of what Justice Gray was doing.
BTW, concerning your ‘answer’ that you repeated 4 times, Justice Gray himself didn’t say anything about natural-born citizenship. Rather, he quoted others saying different things about natural citizenship, as he built a Proof for his decision in favor of WKA’s citizenship.
If I have to respond to such a question, I can do so only by qualifying my answer. Of course I do not agree with you that there actually is such an either/or choice for Wong Kim Ark. You yourself now admit that Justice Gray did, in fact, discuss what "natural-born" means, thereby showing how your dichotomy is a farce; that Justice Gray concluded that Mr. Wong was "merely" a citizen does not negate his analysis of the meaning of "natural-born."
As for your alleged "true understanding," what part of "The same rule was in force...in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established" don't you understand? There are no quotation marks anywhere in those two paragraphs. The initial paragraph even begins with "It thus clearly appears that,..." Sounds oddly like a definition to me.
It appears that you have finally understood my answer. Yes, Justice Gray didn't say anything about "natural-born" citizenship in that paragraph. So you now know why I added the word only and placed quotation marks around it. I don't know for how long you had that paragraph in mind, but surely, you should've noticed that my ellipses quotation came directly from it. It would've saved the two of us a few posts.
Since the likelihood of my actually getting a definition of "natural-born" from you is almost zero, I'll make it easy for you. Why don't you tell me why Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen under the definition below?
You just want to play games with words, to try to win unearned points. That’s a fools game.
My question didn’t ask which issue WKA was ‘about’, but rather, which issue was the Court deciding.
Because you continue to try to twist words and play other word games, you get nothing further from me. You have zero understanding of Court decisions and how to interpret them, and are intent on playing fools games with words and such.
You’re just not worth any more time or effort.
Thank you, come again.
LOL...still...”viral messengers”. LMAO