Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm... how carefully did you read United States v. Wong Kim Ark? Here's the decision:
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 ascitizens 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.
(The Conclusion)...The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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 birtha citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Citizen, notnatural born citizen, as evidenced by the Court's citation of Minor v. Happersett - which I cited earlier in this thread.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
•Anyone born inside the United States
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
The article you posted does not show that. It speculates on a lot of stuff but provides no evidence that Arthur ever even mentioned the age of his father at his birth, let alone lied about it.
It cites other newspaper articles. Look them up.
Last edited by CaseyB; 12-16-2010 at 05:25 AM..
Reason: off topic
And your 'ethics' permits you to ignore a horrendous crime that occurred because the officer responsible for such wasn't questioned by those afraid to do so for fear of punishment, as Lakin is facing? Selective ethics, hmmm???
English not your first language? I find you using the massacre comparison lacking in respect and, yes, rather questionable ethically on your part. Apart from it being a really bad comparison.
Quote:
Well, there's this little thing called an oath that's clouding that issue. Lakin swore to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic . Refusing to obey a deployment command issued by a Constitutionally ineligible CIC is an act of defending the Constitution.
That's the corner you've now decided to defend? The service oath supercedes the UCMJ?
I am beginning to think I took somebody's bait...
The annoying thing with Birthers is that eventually, I start feeling sorry for them. Lakin ditched 18 years of honorable service on some really bad advice, and there's no way out of it now. Sort of like Taitz - in the beginning, she was an amusing spectacle, now she's just a sad, deserted woman needing treatment.
English not your first language? I find you using the massacre comparison lacking in respect and, yes, rather questionable ethically on your part. Apart from it being a really bad comparison.
Of course you don't like it. It shows the unfortunate consequences that may result when there's a failure to question dubious leadership, because everyone's afraid of being punished for questioning a superior officer.
Of course you don't like it. It shows the unfortunate consequences that may result when there's a failure to question dubious leadership, because everyone's afraid of being punished for questioning a superior officer.
I guess I fail at explaining the difference in simple enough terms.
Colonel Sullivan reports that Lakin’s attorney, Neal Puckett, asked tough questions: you asked for this court-martial, didn’t you? Are you proud of what you’ve done? LTC Lakin said he was not proud, and that if he had it all to do over again, he would not actually refuse to deploy — in fact, he would deploy tomorrow, if he could. He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.
From the website's author... "All research done for the USConstitution.net site was done by me. All opinions are mine and mine alone"
The portion that is Title 8 Section 1401 is a direct quote from the ammendment and is not based upon opinion whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
