Posted on 02/04/2012 5:43:26 AM PST by broken_arrow1
Sorry, I get into debates, I don’t get into flame wars.
Wong Kim Ark is mentioned no less than EIGHT times in the article.
So what was your point again?
If you, "get into debates", where are your contributions to the ongoing discussion in this thread? There are none!
Clueless is as clueless does.
“Knowing that 94% of blacks voted for obama sours me on them too.”
Too low. I think it was closer to 98% but Politico has it at 96%.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html
Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.
Amen!
Anyone who reads the writings of the Founding generation can see that the people of the nation were NOT 'citizens of the United States' as most people currently think of themselves today, we are Citizens of the AMERICAN States.
[Tons of great research in your post, BTW! Thanks!]
That depends on how things go.
Economic and political conditions are right for it. It depends on what sparks happen.
As ever, ony a small fraction of a populace has the needed toughness to participate. If the spark is lit, other people don’t matter, and have zero recourse to stop it. They also usually have zero say when its over.
True, but statutory law is MAN MADE, or positive law. The only type of citizen it can create IS a naturalized citizen.
Only Natural Law can create a Natural-born Citizen.
***
By the Birther's own sainted Vittal "native born" and "natural born citizen" are interchangeable. The very first Congress itself shunned Vittal's constricting view by expanding "natural born citizen" to include those born to American citizens abroad or at sea.
Since you post begins with TWO [three if you count the snarky 'tin foil' comment] false assumptions, I didn't bother reading further.
Congress didn't shun or expand Emmerich de Vattel's definition....they FOLLOWED it.
-----
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Law of Nations
And you MIGHT just try acting like you have at least hit puberty by not deliberately MISSPELLING the man's name when the Founders had so much respect for him.
Unless, of course, you have no respect for the Founders.
I never said they did.
Then why would a Supreme Court statement determine what is and is not natural born when the case before it was could WKA be a citizen in general?
The SC should really only be ruling on whether a law or lower court ruling was Constitutional. Anything beyond that is judicial activism.
I believe your words were, “It gets me when they try to pin everything on the Wong Ark case.” It “gets” me too. (or “gits,” the way I say it)
My non-lawyer view is to regard Ark as a case concerning CITIZENSHIP....not NBC.
I don’t think much of Minor as authority either. That case had to do with women’s suffrage and the citizenship discussion was peripheral to the main issue.
In fact, nobody has shown me any SCOTUS case in which the NBC issue was dealt with directly and unambiguously.
(MamaT, I hope I’m being coherent today...the handling -—or non-handling-—of the citizenship issue has me feeling mighty foul today. In fact, everything connected to Obama makes me feel that way.)
I posted it to illustrate that the Supreme Court acknowledged there are [at least] 2 types of citizens - native born and natural born. I wasn't trying to imply they defined Natural born.
-----
The SC should really only be ruling on whether a law or lower court ruling was Constitutional. Anything beyond that is judicial activism.
On that, we both agree!
INDEED.
INDEED.
MARANATHA
LOL! Yes, your quite coherent. I also agree the NBC issue has been poorly handled by every branch of government.
It could make someone begin to believe there's a REASON the political 'elite' so desperately want to dodge the question.
[ACK!] :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFaVUIPNq08&feature=related
Anybody who helps him deserves to be in prison, too.
That Georgia judge got me off on the wrong foot today.
He was sneaky and gutless and he just HAS to be from my hometown!
Here’s to the melody of “Hosanna” from Jesus Christ Superstar. It is called “The Obama prayer, offered during the times of drought”:
Oh-Bama, Hey-Bama, Bama, Bama –Oh
Bama-Hey, Bama-Oh, Bama
Hey, Hussein, Hussein,
Would you send us rain?
Bama-Oh, Bama-hey, Superstar!
LLS
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.