Posted on 05/06/2011 9:32:12 PM PDT by machogirl
Of course, neither the Constitution nor the law have ever said that. You seem to think that if you just repeat it often enough, it will become so, and BHO will magically just go away.
It seemed to appear somewhere around November, 2008. Funny, there's several threads about Jindal dating from September, 2008 with many posts supporting the idea of a "Palin/Jindal" candidacy in 2012. I haven't perused all of them but I have yet to see a post arguing Jindal's ineligibility that dates prior to Obama's election.
Googling for Vattel on FR, the earliest mention of de Vattel in connection with Obama's eligibility that I could find was this thread, posted on 11 December 2008, in which STARWISE quotes Leo Donofrio, that oh-so-successful crackpot birther lawyer, quoting de Vattel on citizenship. Can anybody find something from before the election?
The Supreme Court said it three times, the first time was just shortly after the ratification, and the Justices were all founders, in the “Venus.”
The Supreme Court speaks:
.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
.
“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
‘The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…’ “
.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
.
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”
.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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.”
.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
“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 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.”
Why how pleasant of you! Have a nice day!
That you Ed? ... You have that Rendell smell
You smell like snakes and banjos.
Please troll to someone else. Thanks.
I’m a really good shot, too.
I bet. Hit your foot on the very first try.
I should say the same thing to you madam.
Keep bashing Jindal with this tripe and expect to be challenged, by me or by someone else. Good day.
In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that he had been born a US citizen despite both parents being non-citizens and only temporary US residents. Are you aware of that?
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Once again, the court explicitly does not exclude children of non-citizen parents.
The sentence you picked had no bearing on the ruling, the previous sentence was what they held, as reaffirmed in WKA:
.United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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 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.
Children who act as rude as you are Obama’s best friends and Free Republic’s worst enemies.
It is sad that civility and behavior on this site (and, indeed, in the US in the McCain/Obama era) has declined so precipitously.
>> “Children who act as rude as you are Obama’s best friends and Free Republic’s worst enemies.” <<
.
And your deliberate deception about our constitution must be Freerepublic’s foundation then?
You think posting the truth is rude?
Lies form your ilk are killing this country.
This thread is loaded with traitors like you trying to dilute and defeat the last free nation on Earth, and I find all of you thouroughly disgusting.
This stuff about Jindal’s parents arriving with green cards is all new to me. I’m sure I had read somewhere before that his mother came in on a student visa and her husband on a students’ spousal visa. I would like to see more documentation on all of this.
With the MSM, anything to confuse the masses.
Let me guess 200 posts of people saying Jindal is not qualified to be POTUS?
Jindal may turn out to be the only one to beat Obama.Who knows?
He was born in La. end of story.
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.