Judge Wants Definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'

WND ^ | 26 April 2012 | Bob Unruh

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

[bluetick]

Delurking just to say that apparently this case is being argued in federal court here in my hometown. I need to look into this further and see if there might be an opportunity for me to go watch some of the proceedings. I’ve lost all hope that the usurper will be dealt with appropriately, but I do like surprises. It’s all history in the making regardless.

[DMZFrank]

Than we can charge the bastid with electoral and campaign fraud for creating the romantic myth of a poor Kenyan goatherd father upon which many voters were moved to vote for the Usurper.

[William Tell]

New Jersey Realist said: "I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say."

The Founders did not intend that the Constitution that they drafted would be so complicated and convoluted that the average person would not understand it.

What do YOU believe the Founders meant by the phrase "natural born citizen"?

It should be pretty obvious that the Founders never wished to see our Commander-in-Chief having difficulty with divided loyalties. What other reason could there be?

Now consider from where such divided loyalties might come. Would a President be conflicted should the time ever come that the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of the President's mother? Of course he would.

Similarly, the President would be conflicted it the interests of his father conflicted with the interests of the nation.

Now ask yourself, would our Founders have deemed it sufficient that only one of the President's parents be a U.S. citizen? Would the possible conflicts of interests be so reduced by having one U.S. citizen parent, that the Founders would accept having one parent of the President be a foreign citizen? Or would it make more sense that both sources of conflict be eliminated?

Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?

[melancholy]

Could we please act out of character for conservatives or republicans and move on.

Go ahead, nobody is holding you back.

[melancholy]

BG,

Even judges who are strict constitutionalists may succumb to “an offer you can’t refuse” from the 0b0z0 regime!

People should know this by now. We live under real communism. The light “European Socialism” never applied to this regime.

FW,

>>>Can you imagine life in Moonbatville today?<<<

Yes, today is “Dump Day” in Washington D.C.

[DMZFrank]

The purpose of Article II, Sec. 1 Clause 5 was to minimize the likelihood of undue foreign influence being trasmitted to the office of POTUS by his parents, PARTICULARLY by a father owing allegiance to an alien sovereignty. From Emmerich de Vattel and the Law of Nations fromwhich the framers derived the meaningof NBC and note the last sentence:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Rubio is presently and actively speaking against the US in favor of the UN and IMF.”

I saw that...he is even worse than I thought.

[stanne]

Oh, I AM.

[Triple]

How dare the SCOTUS even take up a case which would challenge the will of the majority!

It is not like we live in a republic that is supposed to respect the rule of law...errr, ummm, hold on a second.

OK scratch that. I seem to have a vague recollection from high school about the USA being a constitutional republic with 3 co-equal branches of government.

Hey, Drew68, do you remember *any* of that civics stuff from high school? If so, do you think *some* of it might be relevant?

[little jeremiah]

obastard needs to be booted, charged with crimes, and dealt with appropriate, and everyone who aided, assisted, planned, funded and otherwise cooperated with his crimes.

Then, real conservatives need to get into DC and clean house with a huge broom and tons of lysol.

Romney is very similar to 0bastard and I fervently hope there is a revolution at the convention.

[New Jersey Realist]

Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?

---

Because what I say means nothing. My say is an opinion. What the Supremes say is the final interpretation of the law.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

I don't think so. I think you're missing the larger context of this decision (which, it should be noted, Van Irion's side lost). As I read it--and I'm not a lawyer--Irion's side first filed the challenge as a state issue. The defendants had the case moved to federal court. This was an attempt by the plaintiffs--Irion's side--to have it moved back to state court. The attempt was denied.

The judge says there are three reasons a state case might get moved to federal court: "(1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law." He then goes through these criteria to show this case meets them. Basically, he concludes that of course it has a question of federal law as a necessary element, because the definition of natural-born citizen is a matter of federal law; and of course it's a disputed issue, because a lot of people are disputing it.

The conclusion is just that therefore the case stays in federal court. Reading any more into it is wishful thinking.

[rxsid]

"Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because what I say means nothing. My say is an opinion. What the Supremes say is the final interpretation of the law.

=========================================================================

edge919 explains the SCOTUS understanding of the definition. To which, I would add that there were other cases in which SCOTUS reminds us who a "natural born Citizen" is (ex. in Venus).

Not to mention, the father of the 14th Amendment stated the definition in the peoples house a number of times during the debates on the 14th. No other Congressman objected or offered a different definition. They all knew exactly what the definition was. Born in the sovereign territory, to 2 citizen parents owing allegiance to no other country.

[New Jersey Realist]

I did a thorough word search of the U.S. Constitution and every amendment and not once did the word “parent” or “parents” appear. I did note that Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

No mention of parents. There are two kinds of citizens in this country. Natural born (which means in common usage “of the soil”) and those made citizens by other powers, i.e., naturalized. To read anything else into this is to express an opinion, not a fact.

How would one know the citizenship of a parent anyway? What a birth certificate states for father may or may not be true for starters. I’d say a very large percentage of the population are bastards., i.e., born out of wedlock, etc., a product of a sperm bank, adopted, etc. I could go on but you get the picture. What proof is there that our parents are who they say they are? The only sure thing is that a hospital issues the proof that YOU were born there. That’s it!

[rxsid]

"I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.

Remember the reverse occurs in our country's case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother's U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

As has been stated before, the natural born Citizen requirement for the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces was really (and still is) a national security issue.

If one is born with divided citizenship (inheriting a parent(s) foreign citizenship) and therefore divided allegiance owed, it presents a conflict with not only being the Commander in Chief, but also when engaging foreign governments in treaties. The office of the President is in a singularly unique position.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors

Article. II. Section. 2.

[rxsid]

Most things in the Constitution are not defined.

Why would you disregard what many SCOTUS justices have already stated, and what the House of Reps defined back in the 1860's?

Did they have no clue as to what the founders and framers meant?

The only thing that hasn't happened, specifically, is deciding if someone born with foreign allegiance owed can be President...because no such case has been heard and decided by SCOTUS.
The definition, however, is found in numerous other SCOTUS cases concerning citizenship.

If simply being born in the country were enough to be a natural born citizen, you must then admit and agree that 1) anchor baby's are POTUS eligible as is the current Dauphine of France.

Both notions would have been offensive to the framers and those that ratified the Constitution. It should also be offensive to sensible people of today.

FWIW, my oldest son is a naturalized Citizen, my middle son is a natural born Citizen and a younger daughter who is a Citizen by statue/14th Amendment.

[bluecat6]

We can split the difference.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

It was fact that was kept hidden. I was not at all publically known.

Chester Arthur was not a ‘precedent’ for the situation of 2008.

[New Jersey Realist]

Remember the reverse occurs in our country’s case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother’s U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

---

That’s exactly right. My children at any time can apply for English citizenship! My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?

[New Jersey Realist]

Thanks for the reply. I feel your pain. It is very confusing. It seems for the time being anyway that “soil” is the defining factor regarding Obummer and that means illegals can come here, drop a baby and they would also be eligible. I don’t like that for a minute. I was born here and my parents were born here so I have an “inherited” sense of entitlement. My feelings are: if I am eligible to run for President, my children should be as well; if they are, even though their mother was English at the time, then so are anchor babies. What a freekin development this is!

[bluecat6]

Is the unanimous ruling (not dictum) verbiage from Minor being ingnored in this thread?

Also, the closest thing you have to defining the make up of natural born Citizen is where it did appear in law - the 1790 immigration act. That act declared that those of citizen parents (plural) will be considered as (but it does not say they ARE) natural born Citizens.

The verbiage was later dropped in the 1795 version. Probably because it was recognized that it attempted to redefine the Constitution with law. And that is not doable.

Clearly citizen parents and not location were what was key. In the 1700s it was even easier. You followed your fathers citizenship.

Just asking since these two key items are not part of the discussion. Not trying to create trouble.

[bluecat6]

“My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?”

*******************

Somehow that would not seem to fit what the framers had i mind in 1790. But back then they did not have deal with a woman’s citizenship.

[William Tell]

New Jersey Realist said: "My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. "

I don't think so.

I have two grandsons. One was born in England. The other was born here in the U.S.

Both were fathered by a British citizen. Both are being raised by a British father. Both may soon be visiting grandparents in Great Britain.

I don't believe that either one would qualify as a "natural born citizen". I certainly have no doubt that both grandsons will feel an attachment to Great Britain that a "natural born citizen" would not feel.

This situation will not change later simply because my son-in-law decides to become a U.S. citizen.

[noinfringers2]

Whether or not the mother was a USA citizen at time of birth was not stated. If the mother was not a USA citizen then being a ‘NBC’ is not possible by requirement for parentS to be citizens at birth.

[noinfringers2]

I don’t believe the Constitution explicitly defines who can be a ‘ NBC’. It appears to be a shortcoming of the Founders unless it is accepted as fact that the Founders were well versed and intended by debate that ‘natural’ was tied to citizenship of parentS and to land of parent’S citizenship.

[itsahoot]

Heck, all he needs to do is come over here, we have several definitions, most of which make no sense whatever, but they certainly look scholarly and legalistic. The more simple case; Did he submit fraudulent documents in an attempt to conceal facts about his citizenship, and other pertinent information. Did he conspire to conceal records that would reveal facts about his past that would disqualify him from eligibility?

Just some of the easier questions to answer, no need for the Supremes to get involved yet.

[Mr Rogers]

“What do YOU believe the Founders meant by the phrase “natural born citizen”? “

Since the phrase “Natural Born Subject” was a very well known legal phrase, and since it was used interchangeably with NBC for some time AFTER the Constitution, then it seems likely they thought the meanings were largely interchangeable as well...

Unfortunately, a natural born subject included those born of alien parents. This all was explained in detail in a Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s.

[noinfringers2]

In agreement with your comments/reply I and my brother who was killed in the battle of Okinawa and myself a vet of WWII who served on Leyte and other islands ever considered ourselves as 2nd class citizens even though born of non-citizen parents. To try and instill such a stigma on us is contemptuous.

[itsahoot]

I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers.

Are you saying you want to ki77 all the lawyers? {:-)

[itsahoot]

They need to be identified publicly as idiots

Lawyer on the office door already does that. You want more? {:-)

[itsahoot]

He frightens me.

He should, he has divided loyalties. He has one speech and articulates it well, when he starts wondering away from his campaign speech and into specifics on policy his true character is evident. Well to any who want to see it is evident, but most don't see past an electable(R)

[itsahoot]

It is also possible that Justice Horace Gray knew it , too. Heck I might have even known it, but absent any physical evidence, court testimony, it is speculation.

We have more than enough evidence of the fraud perpetrated on the US, by Zero, but few here care to accept any of it.

This country has truly become Bizarro world.

[itsahoot]

hat federal constitutional interpretation should preempt any state law claim involving presidential qualifications.

I suspect this will mean that evidence of the fraudulent documents will not be considered, the NBC hurdle will be removed and it will all die away.

[MD Expat in PA]

In agreement with your comments/reply I and my brother who was killed in the battle of Okinawa and myself a vet of WWII who served on Leyte and other islands ever considered ourselves as 2nd class citizens even though born of non-citizen parents. To try and instill such a stigma on us is contemptuous.

My dad was born in Norway and was about 6 years old when he came to this country. He was not a naturalized citizen when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor but like many other young American men, he tried to enlist the very next day. But because of his citizenship status he was refused. Ironically a year later he was drafted. He fought for this country in the South Pacific Theater and nearly lost his life doing so.

He served with valor and distinction but when he and my mom got married and when my older brother was born, he had not yet “technically” become a naturalized citizen. Part of the reason for the delay was typical governmental SNAFU’s; his service records were all messed up, one document showed he was in the European Theater and some were lost. It took time for him to straighten it out. Ironically both his Norwegian born parents had become naturalized citizens before he did.

When he became “naturalized” the presiding judged told him that his naturalization was merely a legal formality, a technicality and when he took the military oath combined with his service record meant in that judge’s opinion, that he was a US citizen from that time forward.

Both my older brother and I were born on US soil. That my brother was born before my dad was technically naturalized, IMO doesn’t make him any less of an American citizen, a natural born citizen that I am.

[itsahoot]

Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?

Because before the Supreme Court renders a decision there would be many billable hours for our most honest lawyer class.

[itsahoot]

No mention of parents.

No enveitro mentioned either because most people knew how babies were made, the old fashioned way.

[William Tell]

MD Expat in PA said: "That my brother was born before my dad was technically naturalized, IMO doesn’t make him any less of an American citizen, a natural born citizen than I am."

Hey, what a country. Your dad was not only fortunate enough to become a citizen, but he had the power to decide whether or not your brother would be a "natural born citizen" AFTER YOUR BROTHER WAS BORN.

Tell me... if your father had later renounced his citizenship or have been found to have committed fraud in becoming a citizen, would your brother still have been a "natural born citizen"?

Prior to his becoming a U.S. citizen, was your father subject to the laws of another nation? Did that other nation reserve the power to conscript your father into its army? Would your father have been legally bound to serve? Would your brother have a conflict of interest if was President of the U.S. at such time as our nation went to war against your father's homeland?

[noinfringers2]

There are many dots to be connected as to Obama’s history from grandparents to now. I tend to believe by way of Chicago, Hawaii, and communist social life that it is good possibility that Obama’s father is /was really Frank Davis. However, the Dunham family being white and with business connections had to legitimize the pregnancy without the lecherous, rabid communist Davis being involved. Some how by college associations Barack Obama gets into the scene. However, Barack had a wife in Kenya and Hawaii did not allow bigamist marriages. When and if the marriage occurred is not recorded but the couple did go to Kenya to give legitimacy for Obama Jr’s birth. Stanly Ann did not take to the African culture and wanted to leave right after birth of Jr. However. as once reported by a female missionary, who was later assassinated, Stanley Ann was denied immediate air travel because of health, her and baby, and had to wait a few days to take an air flight. The airline travel logs apparently are missing for the days travel would have been. Stanley Ann did show up in late August with child to begin school at U of Washington for which she apparently had warm feelings from earlier years.

[noinfringers2]

First of all I take that you were born after your father was naturalized by official procedures. If so no problem as to being a ‘NBC’. I look at you brother’s situation as much the same as for me and my brother. I don’t believe either my brother or myself are ‘NATURAL’ born citizens as intended for POTUSA because our parents were not naturalized when we were born. Now I only feel what my brother probably would believe but as for me I can live with the thought of being just a USA citizen and proudly served in the USA Army. An interesting bit is that when I was in 2nd or 3ed grade in a parochial school the teacher asked the class one day what of the occupations listed on the blackboard did we want to be. She noted I had not responded and asked why not. I told her what I wanted to be was not listed . She asked me what then. I told her POTUSA. The whole class got a lift on that response. To my dismay years later I found such could never have been realized because I was born of ‘foreigners’. No problem my plain citizenship has been rewarded so much.

[dinodino]

“Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS will craft a decision that confers upon millions of Americans born and raised here a status of second class citizen?”

Are you a *complete* idiot? Nobody is saying they aren’t citizens, just not NBC. Sheesh. Try to keep up!

[MD Expat in PA]

Hey, what a country. Your dad was not only fortunate enough to become a citizen, but he had the power to decide whether or not your brother would be a "natural born citizen" AFTER YOUR BROTHER WAS BORN.

No, not really. As he was not a legal adult, not yet 21 years old when the US Army drafted him during WWII, he wasn’t able to on his own to become naturalized before then and the war kept him pretty busy for the next four years. And as I explained, he and my mom married shortly after the war. He started the naturalization process after getting out of the Army but as I also explained, there were delays for several years in great part because the US government couldn’t provide accurate records of his service and discharge, couldn’t even decide whether he had served in Europe or the South Pacific.

Tell me... if your father had later renounced his citizenship or have been found to have committed fraud in becoming a citizen, would your brother still have been a "natural born citizen"?

First of all, my brother and I were born in America and so we are both natural born citizens. There are only two types of citizens – natural born being those born here and naturalized, those born elsewhere who become citizens. Secondly, what if your American born father renounced his citizenship after you were born? Would that negate your citizenship status retroactively? What a stupid comment.

Prior to his becoming a U.S. citizen, was your father subject to the laws of another nation? Did that other nation reserve the power to conscript your father into its army? Would your father have been legally bound to serve? Would your brother have a conflict of interest if was President of the U.S. at such time as our nation went to war against your father's homeland?

Again, what a completely stupid comment. My father’s “homeland”, place of birth, Norway was under Nazi occupation during WWII. He was not subject to the laws of Norway nor could he have been conscripted into their army. In fact when my father was drafted into the US Army, he was working as an apprentice carpenter on a railroad, work that was considered essential to the war effort and could have qualified for a deferment but refused to take it because he wanted to serve his country – that country being the United States of America.

Furthermore, my brother if he was POTUS and Norway declared war on the US or one of our allies, he would beyond question have no divided loyalties and nether would I or my father. Our allegiance is to America. My father BTW, while not ashamed of his heritage hated the hyphenated crap like Norwegian-American. My father would often say, “I’m an American, first, last and always and to my very last breath.” And indeed he was. My dad was one of the most patriotic men I’ve ever known. He was also a great student of American History and of the Constitution. When he died, there was no Norwegian flag on his coffin, rather an American flag and a VFW color guard.

[DiogenesLamp]

My argument is that the mothers citizenship is irrelevant according to the standards prior to the Cable act, and as it was the consequence of an act of Congress, it has no bearing on the natural law argument understood by the founders.

I also point out that Vattel did not regard Soldiers deployed to foreign lands at the bidding of their nation as having quitted their nation. As we are arguing that the basis of article two is the principles described by Vattel, then just as much weight should be placed on his writings regarding this special case as his writings on the ordinary case.

And lastly, it is simply not equitable to penalize a man's child for his necessary service to the nation. I think the soil requirement is a leftover component of feudal law, and really ought have no basis for being a standard for American Law to follow. One is not a member of a family from simply being born in the family's house, but by being kin to the family, regardless of where born.

My reasons above may not be technically correct, but they are in accordance with natural law as I understand it, and as I perceive the founders would have understood it as well.

I would suggest that under such a circumstance of having a child not born on actual American territory, or born at an American holding in a foreign country, it should be left up to the voters to decide just how much foreign influence he has been contaminated with, and whether such a quantity is too objectionable. Unless it is egregious, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. (Unless he's a liberal, then the slightest whiff of foreign about him is a deal killer! :) )

[DiogenesLamp]

Link.

[William Tell]

MD Expat in PA said: "Again, what a completely stupid comment."

So, in your opinion, it is only necessary that one have a single citizen parent in order to be a "natural born citizen"? It makes you wonder why our Founders bothered.

Washington, for one, was probably just traumatized by that whole "Benedict Arnold" thing.

I also seem to recall that there were many German immigrants in the U.S. at the time of World War II who were subject to being conscripted into the German Army. Am I wrong about that?

[philman_36]

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!
I don't think so.

Well then go find something that proves me wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. The Judge didn't just pull the word "trivial" out of thin air, did he?

If I'm wrong I'll admit I was wrong in my assumption.

I think you're missing the larger context of this decision...
To use your own words...I don't think so. See reply 28.
So the long and short of it is that the case stays at the Federal level.

Oh, wait...you're replying to #39 which is 11 replies after #28.
Why bother posting to me?

[philman_36]

I don’t believe the Constitution explicitly defines who can be a ‘ NBC’.
What exactly is "explicitly defined" in the Constitution?

The Constitution isn't a dictionary as you well know.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her."

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Only if the mother was naturalized by the time of the children's birth. I have a child born to a non-naturalized spouse, born in Japan while I was in service with the Navy. That child has the opportunity to aspire to be many things, but President is not one of them, unless the Constitution is amended. That of course, is my opinion. . .

I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

The Supreme Court already gave it's "opinion" on NBC in Minor vs Happersett, and I'd hardly call a unanimous 9-0 ruling that has never been overturned a "footnote".

Any interpretation of Natural Born Citizen that does not work to reinforce the likelihood of undivided loyalties does not meet the gold standard set forth in the Constitution, "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar."

That said, I would like to see the current Court try to wriggle around Minor.

[philman_36]

This all was explained in detail in a Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s.
Get the dung out of your mouth Rogers and say what you mean. You're talking about Wong Kim Ark and you've been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny. You aren't even bothering with your usual cut and paste job this time.

And let's not forget about your not even knowing who the Founding Fathers deferred to in the formation of our system of government.

When you can't even show, for over an hour, despite prompt replies to my other questions, that you're aware of the works outside of Vattel that the Founding Fathers used in the creation of our Nation then I have no use for you and I will heap scorn upon you at every instance till you can't show your face on these boards without being mocked with ridicule and scorn by others!

[philman_36]

I suspect this will mean that evidence of the fraudulent documents will not be considered, the NBC hurdle will be removed and it will all die away.
Well we'll just have to wait and see if your suspicions are correct, won't we.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"IMO things just heated up!"

I think you could very well be right. I too, found it interesting that the judge blew right past Ankeney and WKA and went straight to Minor.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Taking a cue from the criminal enterprise democrat party, what they lie and cheat to hide and alter indicates what is a legitimate restriction on what they want the law to allow them to do."

It's not just the dems. The GOP has put up and will likely put up again a candidate or candidates with eligibility questions swirling around them. What are the odds?

"Oops upside the head." Good to see you, FW! Looks like I kicked up another one, eh?

;)