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.
Let me suggest you give up making your education or arguments on the back of someone elses opinion and hit the documents of old yourself.
Here are the basics:
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
"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."
Please note these are clear concise definitions of the term "natural born citizen"
If you want to discuss naturalization you are dealing with different documents and a different term.
LET ME REPEAT THIS CLEARLY FOR YOU ... you can not be naturalized and be a natural born citizen ... NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WISH THAT TO BE TRUE.
Let me further remind you that OPINION other than SCOTUS case law remains opinion.
You need to rework your #72 because you are perpetuating what largely has YET TO BE RULED ON BY SCOTUS.
Ignore this if you CHOOSE TO REMAIN WRONG on the ruling law of today.
Simply for the comprehensively challenged that means any case law or OPINION since 1898 is not relevant until ruled on by SCOTUS today or in the future.
Do you understand that or do you wish to argue it further?
The sections of the U.S. Code (1401) that I cite were written from 1934-1994 and supersede court decisions that you cite from the 19th century, that were based upon the laws to date of that time. Congress clarified citizenship in later law and thus made those court decisions moot.
Minor v. Happersett was a court decision that upheld a state's right not to allow women to vote and has little bearing on the laws of today, since every part of the ruling was superseded by either constitutional amendment or an Act of Congress.
To further clarify, I was not making the case that 'one can be naturalized and be a natural born citizen.' That is you putting words in my mouth. My argument was just that the mere fact that one is born on U.S. soil makes one eligible for President once reaching the age of 35.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
"....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."
you missed an important part:
"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."
with the exception of a handful of birther attorneys the entire legal community does not believe that minor v. happersett gives an exclusive definition of NBC.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd520.htm
Excerpts from Devvy Kidd’s ‘WILL THERE BE A CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGE FOR ROMNEY?
....
‘it is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born Citizen unless he can prove that George Romney gained citizenship from naturalization prior to Mitt’s birth in 1947. I have found no records showing this to be the case.”
‘Mexican Constitution - Chapter II
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
Was that still his status when Mitt was born?
_________________
So those who said so definitively that George Romney was born a US citizen because he was born to US citizen parents, take note! His birth in Mexico determined his citizenship at birth, i.e he was born a Mexican! Did he ever naturalize in USA?
According to the present law naturalization would have been a waste of time. Why would it be important when Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya? It seems to me that the same law applies to both men but then I don't know how leftists reason these things.
Give it up troll (my betting is that you're someone who's already posted on here who has decided to create another ID).
Both Romney's are/were considered citizens for the purpose of serving as President.
Obama is a citizen for the purpose of serving as President (although his extended absence as a young child could have raised issues).
What you self-proclaimed "Constitutional experts" always forget is the "necessary and proper" clause which authorizes Congress to pass laws as MTAtech pointed out with the US Code definition of citizenship.
See ya back in elementary school, although you'll be in 2nd grade and I'm at least a year ahead of you.
My dear it would be my wish your “cognitive logic ability” was better than your statement that I am a troll and have multiple ID's here.
Your troll conclusion totally sucks as does your “cognitive logic ability”.
The fact is I found this forum only because someone pinged back to my blog from here and I came to check it out.
The fact that you and your buddy AMTECH are so over your head on case law on this subject is more than pitiful. It is pitiful that before this group you are so outed as ill-informed, ignorant or stupid.
Take your pick any or all
Let me give you a heads up. I AM NO EXPERT on either the Constitution or case law.
I am a simple average citizen with a fairly good command of comprehensive reading skills and the ability to add 2 plus 2 and come up with 4. On my own without having someone else tell me what it means.
If I can do this so can the normal person. Does that show you how low on the totem you have dropped?
That being said you are accompanied by many other equally ignorant "useful idiots" of the left and right.
Apparently you DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY to be educated.
WHY? BY CHOICE!
So dear the UNIVERSAL PLAN is to simply outnumber you.
As time goes on this matter will be settled and Obama will be outed on this matter probably by his own party. WHY? because sooner or later they will figure they tied themselves to a sinking ship and like rats will be using any platform to distance themselves from him.
Mean time carry on with choosing to REMAIN either ignorant or stupid.
Let me leave you now because dialogue with someone with an IQ smaller than my shoe size is simply a waste of this forums time and WORSE MINE
Let me give you a heads up. I AM NO EXPERT on either the Constitution or case law.
And there is not a expert on the Constitution that agrees with this interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause that you have been espousing throughout the thread.
Again: there is not a single judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.
There are plenty of examples of this showing up in our country's history, including a former president, vice presidents, major party nominees and candidates who had non-citizen parents, and none had their eligibility for office seriously questioned on that basis.
With the full weight of history, and the expert opinions of anybody who has taken the time to become an expert on the constitution, who do you think is more likely to have the more accurate view on this part of the Constitution? The combined opinion of constitutional scholars on all sides of the political divide, or Clinical Thinker, the non-expert on the Constitution or case law?
History News Network (http://hnn.us/articles/46216.html - broken link)
All signs suggest that Romney’s future pointed in no other direction than up. But, following a televised comment that attributed his support for the Vietnam War to “brainwashing by the U.S. military” Romney’s campaign became enshrouded in an escalating controversy that dropped his ratings in the polls and caused him to finally concede the race shortly before the 1968 New Hampshire primary.
The sections of the U.S. Code (1401) that I cite were written from 1934-1994 and supersede court decisions that you cite from the 19th century, that were based upon the laws to date of that time. Congress clarified citizenship in later law and thus made those court decisions moot.
Minor v. Happersett was a court decision that upheld a state's right not to allow women to vote and has little bearing on the laws of today, since every part of the ruling was superseded by either constitutional amendment or an Act of Congress.
To further clarify, I was not making the case that 'one can be naturalized and be a natural born citizen.' That is you putting words in my mouth. My argument was just that the mere fact that one is born on U.S. soil makes one eligible for President once reaching the age of 35.
ARGUE ALL YOU WANT ... YOU ARE WRONG!
Have I suddenly lapsed into Mandarin here? Apparently I am not making myself clear.
What you think OR WISH DOES NOT MATTER.
NO ... ANY LAW after the 1898 ruling matters not.
Are you actually trying to look like that reality does not compute for you?
Just so you understand SCOTUS is the highest ruling law of the land. I suspicion you understand that also unless you are completely dense between your ears.
So get in the SCOTUS line with whatever was written after that point in time.
You and a billion others want to have the SCOTUS rule on this.
What don't you understand about they so far CHOOSE NOT?
And until they DO CHOOSE we are stuck with what we have … your buddy Obama has screwed himself into a very tight corner.
Nothing done helps him because the Constitution, SCOTUS case law and congressional documentation can NOT BE CHANGED.
What can happen next is an amendment to the constitution on the "natural born citizen" requirement. That will not help Obama after the fact.
He is what he is. Someone who slipped by a lazy system paying no attention until it was already done. To cover their asses they have conned the lazy faux intellectuals into THINKING all this "natural born citizenship" is silly made up BS.
If you want to carry on and pump this crap into this forum and risk your credibility PLEASE BE MY GUEST!
If not then educate yourself and come back with real data scrutinized from the original documents and case law BY YOU.
Then perhaps you will be on par with people who have actually dived in up to our ears and you will not have the slats kicked out of you in front of God and the world to watch.
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.
