Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 01-16-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
If you are applying the same rule in the United States (as SCOTUS asserts was done) then yes... for the purposes of the rule, they are the same thing.
Except they really weren't the same thing.

Hence, the necessity of passing the 14th Amendment nearly 100 years later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Amarillo
135 posts, read 310,626 times
Reputation: 89
Default claudhopper

Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi View Post
Well, I've had my first spitting out my water kinda laugh of the day. Thanks Claud, thats HYSTERICAL
I did spit my diet coke out...got a get some paper towels.

Claudhopper --- you need a reality check.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
802 posts, read 563,948 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The court still never declared Minor a natural born citizen.
They didn't have too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 04:56 PM
 
57 posts, read 35,688 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
They didn't have too.
to.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 04:59 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
I have read the rest. None of it changes the simple incontrovertible truth that the law you cite (in the first clause of the first sentence) awarded citizenship at birth to anyone born in the Commonwealth.

Period.
Blatantly false.
Quote:
"...and all infants wheresoever born, whose father if living, or otherwise whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father if living, or otherwise their mother, becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed; and all others not being citizens of any the United States of America shall be deemed aliens."
Infants born to non-citizens were deemed aliens.

The first part (that confuses you ) states this:
Quote:
all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth, and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act; and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same, other than alien enemies, and shall before any court of record, give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation that they intend to reside therein; and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth ...shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed."
Both qualifiers had to be met.

Note the specific differences in the use of 'and' and 'or' in the statute. The use of commas and semi-colons should tip you off, as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
802 posts, read 563,948 times
Reputation: 172
I know this is off topic but:



Congressional Record (House) June 14, 1967


“I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.â€



Natural Born Citizen - Congressional Record 6-14-1967 p 15875-80
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
:Both qualifiers had to be met.

Note the specific differences in the use of 'and' and 'or' in the statute. The use of commas and semi-colons should tip you off, as well.
Nonsense. The conjunction is not between two qualifications. It is between two classes of person, both classes of which are citizens.

It says, "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth, and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act."

Think about that. If both criteria were required, it means that whoever became a citizen by that set of clauses would not be citizens until they were at least two years old. It would arguably be the most stupid set of citizenship criteria ever put to paper.

Basic English, IC. Not Birther English.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett View Post
They didn't have too.
Again... we already know that.

What is your point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 05:11 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,402,934 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Note the specific differences in the use of 'and' and 'or' in the statute. The use of commas and semi-colons should tip you off, as well.
How about instead of interpreting state statutes from 200 years ago, you tell me why you think the virtual consensus of American constitutional experts has remained silent about what you believe to be the greatest constitutional crisis of our time?

For the third time: is the virtual consensus of the legal community remaining silent because all of them (except for a handful of birthers) are ignorant about the natural born citizen clause, or are they all intentionally conspiring to remain silent and allow a fraud to continue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2012, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Except they really weren't the same thing.
Yes... they were. That's what applying "the same rule" means.

Basic English, IC. Not Birther English.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top