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.
There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause. There are several former VPs, major party nominees, and major candidates who would not have been eligible for office under your interpretation, and none of them were seriously challenged for office on the basis that they had a foreign parent.
It's not my interpretation. I'm going with Bingham, the father of the 14th Amendment, et al, on this.
Quote:
Among other things, your quote here blatantly misinterprets the Supreme Court's ruling in Wong Kim Ark
No, it does not. Read the ruling for yourself:
Quote:
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. Order affirmed.
The ruling: Wong Kim Ark is "a citizen," not a "natural born citizen."
Quote:
Justice Fuller knew that Gray's majority had just stated that from the beginning of the Constitution, anybody born in the US was a natural born citizen.
No, it did not. It's part of the Congressional Record that Bingham (father of the 14th Amendment) and others knew that only those born in the U.S. to citizen parents were natural born citizens. I've already cited one such instance in this thread. There are others, as well.
The ruling: Wong Kim Ark is "a citizen," not a "natural born citizen."
Just in case you guys missed it, this is what I said when I first quoted Wong:
Quote:
The typical birther at this point will say at this point "But if you CTRL-F through the case, you will not see the court say 'Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen!'" This misunderstands the case and shows a complete lack of understanding of how courts operate.
Thank you, InformedConsent, for proving me completely right. Like a typical birther, he thinks that entire sections of Supreme Court cases which conclude that all those born in the US, regardless of parentage, are natural born citizens, is something to be completely disregarded, and it's meaning completely distorted, because a sentence at the end of the opinion did not say exactly what InformedConsent thinks it should say.
InformedConsent also ignores the dissenting opinion, which also clearly understood that Wong was being declared a natural born citizen, and that all those born in the US are natural born citizens, regardless of parentage.
Quote:
No, it did not. It's part of the Congressional Record that Bingham (father of the 14th Amendment) and others knew that only those born in the U.S. to citizen parents were natural born citizens. I've already cited one such instance in this thread. There are others, as well.
Well, if Bingham (NOT the father of the 14th Amendment) was so clear and everybody understood what he was saying, and he was saying exactly what you think he said, how come there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with that interpretation today?
InformedConsent also ignores the fact (gee, birthers do ignore lots of facts, don't they?) that there are a multitude of former Presidents, VPs, nominees and candidates who had alien parents, and who would've been ineligible under the birther interpretation of the natural born citizen clause. Of course, there's no evidence that any of these people faced serious challenges to their eligibility for office, but it doesn't matter, as long as we make Obama seem illegitimate, right InformedConsent?
Why are you quoting the law for those born in England? Are you trying to claim Obama was born in England?
Quote:
It was a unanimous ruling of the court, and if it was such a bizarre anomaly, why did the state Supreme Court refuse to hear the case?
I don't know, but you can rest assured that that particular refusal to explore the case on the actual merits of the facts of Obama's birth and the historical evidence of the intent and meaning of the 'natural born citizen' clause in the Constitution has not gone unnoticed. Many of we U.S. citizens know we've had a Constitutionally ineligible POTUS shoved down our throats, and those who've enabled the fraud will be held accountable.
Quote:
Courts and constitutional scholars throughout the country have known it since the ratification of the Constitution.
The Congressional Record proves otherwise. Your citing lefty wishful thinking 'blogs' doesn't alter the fraud you're trying to assert.
Why are you quoting the law for those born in England? Are you trying to claim Obama was born in England?
How dense are you to have missed the part (that I put in bold) that explicitly stated:
Quote:
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
I'm claiming, as does any current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor, that anybody born in the US, regardless of parentage, is a natural born citizen.
Quote:
I don't know, but you can rest assured that that particular refusal to explore the case on the actual merits of the facts of Obama's birth and the historical evidence of the intent and meaning of the 'natural born citizen' clause in the Constitution has not gone unnoticed.
As I said, there are 50 states, and if the Ankeny decision was such an anomaly, why not try your luck in a different state? Surely not all state courts, such as the trial, appellate and Supreme Court of Indiana (for starters) will dismiss birthers so easily, right?
It's been over a year since Ankeny, and yet no birther case has been filed in any other state court. Why is that?
Quote:
The Congressional Record proves otherwise. Your citing lefty wishful thinking 'blogs' doesn't alter the fraud you're trying to assert.
If the Congressional Record (but really what you're saying is the quote of a single Congressman that you are misinterpreting) is so clear, how come there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with you?
But sure, go ahead and quote the Congressional Record to Scalia when your case gets to the Supreme Court, I hear he loves that sort of legislative history!
Each quote and historical figure in each of the links I provided was accurate. I link to them only to avoid posting several dozen links in one post. If you dispute the accuracy of any of the quotes in the ObamaConspiracy post, please let me know. If you dispute the facts listed in the Baracryphal post, again, please let me know.
Thank you, InformedConsent, for proving me completely right. Like a typical birther, he thinks that entire sections of Supreme Court cases which conclude that all those born in the US, regardless of parentage, are natural born citizens, is something to be completely disregarded, and it's meaning completely distorted, because a sentence at the end of the opinion did not say exactly what InformedConsent thinks it should say.
You seem to not understand what you read. Not one SCOTUS case has ever ruled a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent a natural born citizen. They have been ruled citizens only.
Quote:
Well, if Bingham (NOT the father of the 14th Amendment)
Hmmm... here bc42gb43 exposes him/herself as yet another pro-Obama C-D poster ignorant of historical fact.
http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v36/docs/finkelman36.4.pdf (broken link)
Quote:
...was so clear and everybody understood what he was saying, and he was saying exactly what you think he said, how come there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with that interpretation today?
They have...
Quote:
Sen. Leahy: "Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens."
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security: "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen."
InformedConsent also ignores the fact (gee, birthers do ignore lots of facts, don't they?) that there are a multitude of former Presidents, VPs, nominees and candidates who had alien parents, and who would've been ineligible under the birther interpretation of the natural born citizen clause. Of course, there's no evidence that any of these people faced serious challenges to their eligibility for office, but it doesn't matter, as long as we make Obama seem illegitimate, right InformedConsent?
So, you're premise is two wrongs make a right? Really? Why do we prosecute murderers then? it's pretty clear some murderers have gotten away with their crimes. According to your logic, that should mean everyone else should be able to get away with murder, too.
And note to revisionists: not every U.S. citizen is Constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS and CIC. The Founding Fathers deliberately intended to exclude foreign influence from the highest levels of our Executive Branch and U.S. Military for what should be obvious reasons. What about that do you not understand?
You seem to not understand what you read. Not one SCOTUS case has ever ruled a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent a natural born citizen. They have been ruled citizens only.
Under that interpretation, the final decision in Wong makes no sense. The reasoning in Wong makes no sense. The dissent in Wong makes no sense. It is absolutely necessary for the final ruling that Wong is a citizen of the United States that he be a natural born citizen.
You argue that when somebody says "If you have citizen parents, you are a natural born citizen," that that means the same thing as "If you don't have citizen parents, then you are not a natural born citizen.
Let's tease this out.
Quote:
If I am in New York, then I am in the US.
Does that mean the same thing as:
Quote:
If I am not in New York, then I am not in the US?
This is the logical error you are making, and frankly it's something that most school children (should) know at an early age.
If X -> Y
If not X -> not Y
Known as denying the antecedent.
Quote:
if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen
To take that to mean that if you are not born of American parents, then you are not a natural born citizen is a gross logical fallacy.
Quote:
So, you're premise is two wrongs make a right? Really? Why do we prosecute murderers then? it's pretty clear some murderers have gotten away with their crimes. According to your logic, that should mean everyone else should be able to get away with murder, too.
My premise is that you're trying to prosecute somebody for eating the Jimmy Dean pancake wrapped around a sausage on a stick, but I can point to literally dozens of people who have done it for years without consequence, then maybe the law doesn't mean what you think it means.
You think that a requirement of natural born citizenship is that both parents be American citizens. There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with you [your complete inability to understand grade-school formal logic notwithstanding]. There is historical precedent going back 150 years of candidates who had foreign born parents, and none of them were seriously challenged due to their parents' citizenship.
Quote:
And note to revisionists: not every U.S. citizen is Constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS and CIC. The Founding Fathers deliberately intended to exclude foreign influence from the highest levels of our Executive Branch and U.S. Military for what should be obvious reasons. What about that do you not understand?
You're right, naturalized citizens are ineligible for POTUS or VP. As the Supreme Court has said many times, there are only two classes of citizen, the natural born and the naturalized.
You're right, naturalized citizens are ineligible for POTUS or VP. As the Supreme Court has said many times, there are only two classes of citizen, the natural born and the naturalized.
Blurring, by improper merger, the meanings of the terms "native" and "natural" does not change the lawful distinction of each.
And, the term "naturalized" is pretty much irrelevant to the constitutional qualification, Natural Born Citizen.
Under that interpretation, the final decision in Wong makes no sense. The reasoning in Wong makes no sense. The dissent in Wong makes no sense. It is absolutely necessary for the final ruling that Wong is a citizen of the United States that he be a natural born citizen.
The "antecedent" in Wong, dear boy, consists of the question put forth, which was: "Is this Wong guy a citizen of the United States?"
To say that he was Native Born, in no way equates to, "he was Natural Born".
Unless, of course, his parents were naturalized U.S. citizens at the time he was Native Born, which the case record clearly shows they were not.
And, scrap your X, Y Pigauthorian Theorem.
Two adjuncts do not make for a conjunctive-essential.
The "antecedent" in Wong, dear boy, consists of the question put forth, which was: "Is this Wong guy a citizen of the United States?"
To say that he was Native Born, in no way equates to, "he was Natural Born".
Unless, of course, his parents were naturalized U.S. citizens at the time he was Native Born, which the case record clearly shows they were not.
And, scrap your X, Y Pigauthorian Theorem.
Two adjuncts do not make for a conjunctive-essential.
The majority in Wong explicitly stated that anybody born in the us is a natural born citizen, regardless of parentage. Full stop.
I'm sorry that my explacating of the fundamental logic error informedconsent made was too difficult for you to understand, but it's a perfect example of the faulty reasoning abilities of birthers.
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.
'blogs' doesn't alter the fraud you're trying to assert.
