Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $81,858
93%  
Woo hoo!! And now over 93%!! Less than $6.2k to go!! Let's git 'er done. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Crush T Velour

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Why the GOP always gets outmaneuvered

    08/18/2009 5:39:58 AM PDT · 34 of 118
    Crush T Velour to Timeout

    The GOP is not “always” outmaneuvered. Sarah Palin just succeeded in getting the Democrats to back down on the Death Panels.

  • Born in the USA, or: The Obama Birther Story Explained

    08/12/2009 7:38:53 AM PDT · 30 of 34
    Crush T Velour to steve-b

    There is a hidden records issue with Obama, but I think it is very unlikely that he was not born in Hawaii.

    Here’s the reason he doesn’t want to release the long form certificate: Under “Race”, it says “White”.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 5:57:58 PM PDT · 104 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    The American born child of English citizens wouldn't be a Natural Born Citizen. You keep ignoring the language of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers.
    You mean the supposed language of a clause of the 14th amendment, right? Not the Constitution as a whole. Not the original Framers but those of an amendment 90 years later. But the amendment doesn't say that. Supposedly someone said that during the DEBATE of the amendment. That's not the Constitution. That's just someone talking.
    Your devotion to English common law in regards to anchor babies is especially humorous considering England doesn't recognize a child who is born on English soil as a British citizen if neither parent is a British citizen.
    I don't know whether that is true or not. But I'll warrant it was not the case in 1789. But my devotion is to the ruling in "US v Wong Kim Ark" [1898] which you seem determined to pretend never happened.
    The amendment process exists for the primary purpose of rejecting the mindset of the original Founders.
    Fine, but the text of the amendment does not support that rejection. It doesn't redefine citizenship except placing it beyond the reach of Indians and those with diplomatic immunity.

    "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."

    This definitely excludes Indians born on reservations (but not anymore) and children born entirely in the households of foreign ambassadors...that is people born NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US. There's no way it excludes people with dual citizenship since they are in no way not subject to the juridiction of the US. It doesn't say what you are saying it says. It doesn't matter what was in someone's mind if the text didn't even begin to make it onto to the page. You're taking statements of a senator, waving your hands, and say "The cat is in the bag" really means "Anything with fur and a tail is in the bag."

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 2:14:20 PM PDT · 102 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    Yes, but so is the ambassador. That issue was also settled in the senate debate for the Citizenship Clause. An ambassador can't murder a US citizen and be immune from prosecution.
    So what?? I'm sure the king under English common law would not have tolerated a serial killer under cloak of ambassadorship. Ambassadors (within a tremendous expanse) are "not subject to the jursidiction" of the US, and the concept maps directly to the "natural born" exception that the SC referenced.

    Look it is not possible for "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "citizen". 1) "Subject..jurisdiction" is a *quality* of citizenship in the clause and 2) if they meant "citizen" why not just say "citizen".

    That's just it, there wouldn't be a child born into citizenship in that household. To me, it would seem impossible to even naturalize the child until the child was old enough to renounce all possible conflicting allegiances.
    Americans are not required to renounce all possible conflicting allegiances. I have a Canadian friend with an American wife who has three sons, all born in the US...natural born citizen, never naturalized...who have citizenship in Canada. You are imagining an America that has never existed. Wong Kim Ark only became an issue because he was Chinese. If his parents had been English citizens, no one would have denied him all the rights of a natural born citizen.

    I repeat: The Constitution only discusses TWO types of citizen 1) naturalized and 2) natural born. If your a citizen and you're not one, then you are the other.

    The 14th amendment was written almost 90 years after the Constitution was ratified. The mindset of (some of) its voters can hardly be considered representative of the original Founders who did not define "natural born" because they knew what it meant from common law. The debates you are hanging so much on did not even directly pertain to the purpose clause itself or the final text. They were a side issue.

    Finally, it doesn't matter what some senator thought in 1867. The SCOTUS --dealing directly with what "citizen" meant when the Founders voted on the Constitution-- clarified the issue in 1898. And, by that definition, Obama is a natural born citizen.

    It's clear what the Framers of the clause had in mind.
    It is not clear fromt the text of the constitution. What is clear is that the child would be a natural born citizen based on English common law (on which ALL US non-Federal law was based). All the ways that having a father who was an ambassador would complicate things is hardly made clear even based on what some senator said once whose opinion did not prevail in the debates on the 14th amendment.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 7:51:27 AM PDT · 100 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant

    It just occurred to me that you probably have another issue in mind as well.

    Is the child subject to US jurisdiction? Yes...unless the Saudi ambassador married the mother and did whatever paperwork is necessary to have the child added to his household. I don’t know what that would entail. I also don’t know what rules the State Department uses with the families of ambassadors if they get into legal trouble. I imagine this would be a sticky issue if a member of an ambassador’s household was also an American citizen. If I were making the decision, I would insist within the paperwork that the child be removed to KSA during the time that the ambassador was posted to the US. But I don’t know what would actually happen.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 7:42:32 AM PDT · 98 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    A Saudi Ambassador knocks up an American girl on US soil, what sort of citizenship will the child be born with?
    Where he knocks her up is irrelevant. If the child is born on American soil, then the child will be be a Natural Born citizen based on "US v Wong Kim Ark". Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a natural born citizen (not needing naturalization) even though he had TWO parents who were not citizens.

    This was based on English common law because the Constitution itself does not define the term "natural born citizen". The Framers were well aware of English common law and the US had no separate common law.

    I presume that if the Saudi ambassador chooses to recognize the child as his own, then KSA will recognize him as a citizen. But whether they do or don't, the US government doesn't care. For example, lets say 2 years later the ambassador changes his mind. Let's say he pulls strings in the KSA records department to unrecognize the child and has his/her citizenship revoked. It would still not affect the child's status as a citizen of the US: he/she would still be a natural born American citizen. What KSA does or doesn't think is irrelevant.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/04/2009 2:53:25 AM PDT · 96 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    "It excludes more than that. It excludes foreigners, aliens and Indians as well as ambassadors."
    Foreigners and aliens in the country legally are POSITIVELY subject to the jurisdiction of US laws (unless they are in San Francisco). There's a reasonable argument that illegal aliens are a different entity, but they are still within the *jurisdiction* of US laws. So there is still a reasonable claim for the children of illegal aliens being natural born citizens. Which is how they are treated. (I agree a Constitutional amendment is justified although I doubt we'll get it.) Indians are not exactly on US soil, and so, yes, they were not natural born at the time of this amendment UNTIL the US finally naturalized all of them. Now they are. AMBASSADORS are not subject to the jurdiction of US laws.
    "You just admitted that [the US government recognizes the citizenship claims] with the ambassadors."
    No it does not. You are confused, but you wouldn't be if you would bother yourself to read "US v Wong Kim Ark" which I have conveniently posted a link to. The Court addressed this issue. IT IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM ENGLISH COMMON LAW. The children of ambassadors are not within the jurisdiction of US laws at birth, so they are not natural born citizens...nor naturalized citizens either. I reiterate: The reason children of ambassadors born in the US are not natural born US citizens has NOTHING to do with the competing claim of citizenship from their parents' country. NOTHING whatsoever. That is not an issue for US citizenship for anybody.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 5:05:52 PM PDT · 91 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant; All
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject ( citizen ) to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
    No. No. No. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children of foreign ambassadors born in the US. It does not mean "citizen". And the clause has nothing to do with being a citizen of the US, so it is a really bad source to try to redefine citizenship for the rest of the Constitution, even if you HAD properly understood it. And it doesn't matter anyway after "US v Wong Kim Ark"
    When the Senate was debating this matter, they made it perfectly clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.
    They didn't put it in the Constitution, whatever you think they presupposed. And what you think they presupposed is suspect based on your reading of the text of the clause.

    The US government does not recognize the claims of citizenship by other countries. It grants citizenship and revokes it on its own terms. If another country happens to consider you a citizen, it doesn't matter to the US government. Iraq has so far recognized ALL Iraqi diaspora everywhere in the world as it's citizens having the right to vote in national elections. Are you saying that suddenly made an American born to two naturalized Iraqis unqualified for President? You still have not resolved this paradox however many times I've offered it.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:19:43 PM PDT · 88 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Lmo56; Eagle Eye; All
    The 14th Amendment ONLY declares that anyone born in the United States is a CITIZEN - it makes NO DEFINITE clarification of “natural-born” citizenship ...
    See my reply to Red Steel:
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:12:08 PM PDT · 87 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Extremely Extreme Extremist
    We can all trace our heritage to communist African thugs?
    Some of us. Others trace their heritage back subjects of European/Asian/etc thugs.
    Obama's Daddy was born in Kenya, was a British citizen, which automatically transferred to young Zero.
    So if Ahmedinejad recognized everyone in the US as a citizen of Iran, he could prevent us from having a US President?
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:06:40 PM PDT · 85 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Extremely Extreme Extremist
    His communist, alcoholic, skirt-chasing old man was born in Kenya, you effing doorknob! He was a British citizen and per the 1948 British Nationality Act his citizenship automatically transferred to Zero.
    Wong Kim Ark was born of TWO chinese non-citizen parents. The SCOTUS declared him a natural born citizen.

    Who cares if Britain recognized Obama as a citizen? Who cares if China did? What the Iranian parliament declared that it recognized everyone in the state of Michigan to be a citizen of Iran? Would that invalidate their American citizenship?

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 4:00:48 PM PDT · 81 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Red Steel
    Wrong as usual. The holding or judgment in the case, the majority opinion, did not call Ark a Natural born citizen.
    Read the ruling (or at least my summary) or do not respond. The Court's ruling in the case states:

    1) The Constitution does not define "natural born citizen".

    2) Therefore, English common law should hold for the definition of this term (since the United States never had a common law).

    3) [According to English Common Law,] "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."

    4) Therefore, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

    To argue that the SCOTUS was not declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, is being deliberately dense.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 3:51:04 PM PDT · 78 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    Don't the designs of the Framers trump your English common law?
    The SC justices relied on English common law because the Framers did not deign to define "natural born citizen" or even "citizen" in the Constitution.

    Now, if you can show that the Framers (not Justice Marshall or some senator 86 years later) universally presumed some other definition of "natural born citizen" than English Common Law, we might have something to debate about.

    But it would still not affect Obama unless the SC decides to override "US v Wong Kim Ark" or the Congress/States amend the Constitution to otherwise define "natural born citizen". Even then, it would not affect Obama, since he was elected before the law went into effect.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 2:45:18 PM PDT · 75 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Perchant
    "Why are children of ambassadors and diplomats not natural-born citizens if they are born on US soil? It's not the child's fault who his parents are."
    It's not an issue of fairness. It's an issue of English common law. Ambassadors are under the leigeship of a foreign government. Their bodies and households are foreign soil. For that reason, foreign consulates are considered foreign territory. So a child of an ambassador is born in the land of its parent wherever that birth takes place. Beyond that, the status of the parents make no difference.*

    * A possible exception might be if BOTH the parents were in the US illegally. But the issue has never come up in an elected POTUS, so who knows? As it is, the congress treats children born in the US to illegals as (at the very least) NATURALIZED citizens, and the Constitution gives them the right to determine the qualifications of naturalization.

    I don't think you need to look beyond the Framers’ intent in regards to the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment.
    That debate was not participated in by the Founders. Nor does a debate hold the force of law. "US v Wong Kim Ark" does have the force of law.
  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 2:28:33 PM PDT · 73 of 104
    Crush T Velour to usmcobra
    Illegal aliens, don't pay income taxes, cannot be drafted and will never be citizens, and the same applies to anyone here on a visa, a visa means they are not subject to those laws that are applied to our citizens, because they do not place themselves under our jurisdiction, meaning that they do not want to become US citizens, and that they want to remain under their own country's jurisdiction.
    I agree. However, I don't think it has been tested in the courts yet. I bet the SCOTUS will never review such a case unless a lower court agrees with you and me. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the right to define naturalization rules, so if they treat anchor-babies as immediately naturalized citizens (right or wrong), they are not beyond their legal rights to do so. If such an anchor baby ever runs for POTUS, there will potentially be a Constitutional crisis unless Congress and the SCOTUS ignore the issue.

    As for Obama, he had at least one parent in the country legally. So, by US v Wong Kim Ark, he is a natural born citizen.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:56:59 PM PDT · 70 of 104
    Crush T Velour to allmendream

    heh heh heh...

    Very perceptive!

    It’s an old nickname I used as the starship captain in some quasi-Star Trek computer game I played when I was a teen.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:39:51 PM PDT · 68 of 104
    Crush T Velour to DBrow
    So here is Saul Alinsky being read by conservatives, and golly listen to the left complain!
    I can appreciate feeling pleasure at Obama's unhappiness. But I'm not willing for us to become fools for Obama's sake.

    I suspect the reason Obama doesn't want his long form birth certificate to become public is that under "Race" it says "White".

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:32:43 PM PDT · 65 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Lmo56; allmendream; All

    My mistake. allmendreams DOES understand the ruling.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 1:08:17 PM PDT · 64 of 104
    Crush T Velour to Lmo56; allmendream; All

    You two cannot understand the ruling. I’m sorry for that, but tried to help: I broke it down for you in the original post.

    Let’s try one more time.

    1) Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a natural born citizen even though he had TWO parents who were not citizens.

    2) One must be a natural born citizen to eligible to be POTUS. So Wong Kim Ark could have been a POTUS.

    2) The court ruled that children born in the US to Ambassadors and the like of other countries were NOT natural born citizens.

    3) If one required two citizens, who were naturally born by your definition, in order to be a Natural Born Citizen then YOU would not be a natural born citizen if you had even ONE great-great grandparent who was not in the US in 1789.

    4) If having dual citizenship precluded Americans from being President, then Yemen could prevent every member of the GOP from being President by recognizing them as citizens.

  • SCOTUS Case Determining "Natural Born" Def.: UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

    08/03/2009 10:04:07 AM PDT · 29 of 104
    Crush T Velour to TheBigIf
    The case had nothing to do with the eligibility clause of the Constitution. You want to apply it there to suit your wishes but it does not. 14th Amendment style citizenship (anchor-baby) has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for president. Show me one place in this ruling that it says it was redefining the eligibility clause. You can’t because it does not exist.
    The case determined that an anchor-baby is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Constitution says only NATURAL BORN CITIZENS can be President. Ergo...anchor babies can be President of the United States.

    It's not complicated.