U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
John Jay can tell you. Read his letter to Washington. (Hint: It's in English.)
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess you didn't know.

John Jay can't tell us anything. He died in 1829.

It would have been nice if, anywhere in his writing, he had left a letter or note regarding how he definied "natural born citizen." But sadly, he did not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:26 AM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,624,652 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
How is deployment lawful when the command issued from an illegitimate CIC?
Because that belief is irrational and without credible evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
How is deployment lawful when the command issued from an illegitimate CIC?
The command did not issue from the CIC at all. You must not have been paying attention to the trial we are talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:28 AM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,471,080 times
Reputation: 2337
Obama is going to pardon him for PR.

I've talked to his people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:28 AM
 
62,497 posts, read 27,802,586 times
Reputation: 7885
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You still appear to be confused.
No. I'm very well aware of the SCOTUS decision. To recap:

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. 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 birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Citizen, not natural born citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:30 AM
 
62,497 posts, read 27,802,586 times
Reputation: 7885
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The command did not issue from the CIC at all.
Really? Officers below the level of CIC can deploy military troops to whatever country they want, at will?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. I'm very well aware of the SCOTUS decision.
Please, IC... try to keep up.

Here are the questions you were asked:

Do these statements contradict each other?

1. A platypus is a mammal.

2. A platypus is a mammal that lays eggs.


Let me google that for you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,118,471 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Really?
Yes. Really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Officers below the level of CIC can deploy military troops to whatever country they want, at will?
Of course not. They need congressional approval. This was covered in the trial.

Hulllllllloooooo!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:32 AM
 
39,058 posts, read 23,165,932 times
Reputation: 12156
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Or... the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.
- Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162

Parents... both parents. Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent, and admits he was born a British citizen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen.



Watch this thread get deleted, even though I've provided proof from SCOTUS and Obama himself that Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen.
If your entire argument relies on the quote from the Minor v Happersett case, you have a little problem. The word "children" is the subject of the participial phrase in that sentence. "Children' is a plural noun. Hence any and all subsequent references would use plural nominatives. The fact that the ruling does not specify "both parents" is problematic, because the use of "parents" is simply good grammar (as we would expect from learned judges), not an actual assertion that "both parents" need to be US citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 10:32 AM
 
62,497 posts, read 27,802,586 times
Reputation: 7885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Because that belief is irrational and without credible evidence.
Not according to Constitutional requirements and SCOTUS decisions on citizenship status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top