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 06-17-2013, 08:45 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,719,963 times
Reputation: 1443

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I've asked you to post the federal law that defines "natural born citizen" and you still CAN'T do so.
I can't do it to your satisfaction. I'll admit that. I don't see either of changing core beliefs on this. We can only debate and hopefully learn even if we don't agree. Meanwhile, if there's anyone left reading besides us they can come to their own conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:46 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,492 posts, read 44,230,479 times
Reputation: 13496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
IC continues to fail at the basic reading comprehension. Seeing as one doesn't need to say "Natural born citizen" >>>>
And yet, SCOTUS says it, in direct reference to certain individuals who meet the specific requirements...

Two SCOTUS cases, to start:

Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage

Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State... except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”

State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:51 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,719,963 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Possibly one of the venues but by no means are the courts the only venue. A LOT of people dropped the ball on Obama's Constitutional ineligibility issue. I'll graciously acknowledge that such was due to undereducated ignorance rather than actual malicious intent.
I don't think anyone will succeed as long as 8 USC § 1401 exists. Not because it is right or wrong but simply as a matter of time. That's why I said this is just a philisophical endevour and one that people spend a lot of energy on (and I firmly believe some are in it for the money and anyone that files more than one suit is certifiable).

As soon as the president is sworn in that ends all court cases. Of course that doesn't mean people won't file because this is American and that's part of petitioning our government which of course is part of the 1st.

But a court cannot remove a sitting president no matter how much someone thinks they aren't the president. Sworn in = too late.

So, if the goal is to make a difference the only thing that can be done is impeachment but Congress doesn't care to do that.

Cruz won't be elected. America is not ready for a Canadian born president.

If people enjoy discussing this for some intellectual reason then so be it. If they think something is going to change then I think they are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:54 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,719,963 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
The US Constitution defines Natural born citizen. Its called the 14th Amendment.

Now show us the LAW that says natural born citizens are born ONLY to two citizen parents (because we know that you subscribe to the birther de vattel belief).
Until there's an amendment that uses the phrase "natural born citizen" the other side is not going to agree with you. The phrase is not in the 14th.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:55 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,492 posts, read 44,230,479 times
Reputation: 13496
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
I'm asking for your definition.
"My" definition is irrelevant. What matters is the Framers' intended definition, and the definition as SCOTUS has referenced or specific applications in which SCOTUS has not felt it necessary to intervene...

Two SCOTUS cases, to start:

Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage

Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State... except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”

State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:58 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,719,963 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Are you unaware of John Jay's letter to George Washington suggesting that the "natural born citizen" requirement (and its intended purpose) be included in the Constitution's POTUS eligibility clause?
I detect a slight backslide. I am aware of it but I don't see your point. We are not arguing that natural born citizen isn't a requirement to be commander and chief. We are arguing about what that means which is also not defined in the letter. It would have been nice for the founders to spend a bit more time on that clause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,961,479 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
I don't think anyone will succeed as long as 8 USC § 1401 exists. Not because it is right or wrong but simply as a matter of time. That's why I said this is just a philisophical endevour and one that people spend a lot of energy on (and I firmly believe some are in it for the money and anyone that files more than one suit is certifiable).

As soon as the president is sworn in that ends all court cases. Of course that doesn't mean people won't file because this is American and that's part of petitioning our government which of course is part of the 1st.

But a court cannot remove a sitting president no matter how much someone thinks they aren't the president. Sworn in = too late.

So, if the goal is to make a difference the only thing that can be done is impeachment but Congress doesn't care to do that.

Cruz won't be elected. America is not ready for a Canadian born president.

If people enjoy discussing this for some intellectual reason then so be it. If they think something is going to change then I think they are wrong.

Ted Cruz will not be a future President of the USA because he is the closest thing to Joe McCarthy that the GOP has hacked up since well Tail Gunner Joe himself. My cats hairballs have more thought and knowledge than Ted Cruz!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:59 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,492 posts, read 44,230,479 times
Reputation: 13496
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
LOL. Nothing on this forum has any emotional effect on me at all. I enjoy the research because I'm here to learn.
Then why flat out reject the facts I'm posting? I've even posted links; you can research them yourself.

Contrary to your assertion of a supposed desire to learn, you've demonstrated no interest in learning. You want to cling to your preconceived beliefs no matter what. You're immune to comprehending and accepting known historical facts. You've demonstrated a propensity to eschew facts and cling to your misinformed beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,485 posts, read 21,726,829 times
Reputation: 13525
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
The distinction is between "natural born" citizens and citizens, not "natural" born citizens and "born" citizens
do you have a definition for any of those in the US Constitution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 09:02 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,719,963 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
"My" definition is irrelevant. What matters is the Framers' intended definition, and the definition as SCOTUS has referenced or specific applications in which SCOTUS has not felt it necessary to intervene...

Two SCOTUS cases, to start:

Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage

Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State... except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”

State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
Serious? You're going boiler plate? So you put forth no argument of your own nor use any thing to backup your non-arguement.

Because something IS doesn't mean something else ISN'T. Usually when people refuse to reveal something they are accused of hiding something. Or worse a conspiracy.

So if you aren't willing to say what you think, are you willing to say what you think the founders thought?
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.

© 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