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.
The final ruling is merely the summary of the decision. That summary includes the facts of the case, both relevant and irrelevant.
Except when SCOTUS specifically names the required factors in the ruling, which Gray specifically chose to do in this case.
Other SCOTUS rulings have deliberately avoided limiting their applicability in such a manner. You know that, you just choose to remain ignorant because it suits your agenda.
I just quoted the exact words AND the meaning intended by the Amendment's authors:
The actual requirement is: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Where those who are born owing allegiance to a foreign power fail to meet this requirement is that they are not under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. as the 14th Amendment requires.
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
I just quoted the exact words AND the meaning intended by the Amendment's authors:
Ignoring that the 14th Amendment does not define what a natural born citizen is under the Constitution, I will not waste again the bandwidth necessary to again show how grossly you misrepresent those statements regarding what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. I will instead merely quote again what SCOTUS has to say on the issue.
Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
Except when SCOTUS specifically names the required factors in the ruling, which Gray specifically chose to do in this case.
We have already repeatedly demonstrated how irremediably stupid that assertion is.
That summary no more declared "permanent domicile" a required factor than it declared Chinese parents a required factor. You insult only yourself with such a bizarre and brazen display of frothing idiocy when you pretend otherwise.
The actual requirement is: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Where those who are born owing allegiance to a foreign power fail to meet this requirement is that they are not under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. as the 14th Amendment requires.
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Does the U.S. make treaties with England? Yes. Was Obama born a Brit? Yes, according to both himself and the DNC.
Interesting you are saying with the union jack in the side of it's flag Hawaii is a British colony ? Was Obama born a Brit no, one could argue from his Father's side that he was born a Kenyan, but that certainly does not make him a Brit, he has no right to be domiciled in the UK. Yes his father was born a British subject who MAY have the right to be domiciled in the UK, but there is no guarantee of that. Cruz was born a Canadian subject of the CANADIAN Queen who has the right to live in Canada but that does not give him the right to live in the UK.
No, not my opinion. I've cited U.S. Secretaries' of State actions, and two SCOTUS references (there's more)..
You're a broken record. You are totally devoid of logic or just don't care. You say there's a Supreme Law of the Land and then you use "actions" by something that isn't part of it to "prove" your point. The "action" you posted is an opinion that absolutely agrees with me that the issue hasn't been litigated. Then you post Supreme Court cases that have nothing to do with the argument after admitting that the State department says no one knows. In other words, you depend on the State department to back you up by saying it is unknown and then list cases to prove it is unknown.
I am not posting this to argue with you. This is for any sane people that are still with us.
You must think two wrongs make a right. You list two cases that list affirmative decisions. In other words, they state that something is true. Your argument is that something is false. You accept two affirmative decisions as proof of a negative when nothing about a negative is in case law which is provenby your own exhibit from the State department.
Because A and B are, does not mean C isn't. <-- That is simple logic and you either refuse to believe it or you believe it and refuse to acknowledge it.
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 toa 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.
You only think it would have been "stupid" because your opinion differs from SCOTUS.
Must be sad to only have three things left. You think that eventually Picard will say there are 5 lights when there are 4 but he won't.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White being a a natural born citizenborn in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage does not mean that Barak Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White being a a natural born citizenborn in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage does not mean that John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White being a a natural born citizenborn in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage does not mean that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.
In order for case law to help you, you'd have to point to something that shows someone in the same circumstances was declared NOT to be a natural born citizen but that case law does not exist. Same for the other case. The State department already told you this but you refuse to believe your own source.
What you are saying is:
Kwock Jan Fat v. White being a a natural born citizenborn in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriagemeans that Barak Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White being a a natural born citizenborn in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriagemeans that John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White being a a natural born citizenborn in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriagemeans that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.
That is pretty crazy. A smart person would stop at stating what their opinion is, referring to documents backing it up and that's it. Repeating the same thing over and over again and saying it makes your facts correct is just embarrassing.
Try clicking you heels three times next time you boilerplate.
This is precisely why the Natural Born Citizen requirement of two citizen parents and born in one of the United States was strategically placed in the Constitution.
There is an NBC requirement but the rest of what you typed is made up. Parenthood is not mentioned in the Constitution. Place of birth is not mentioned in the Constitution.
If you can't admit that you're hopeless.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nobody is arguing what it says (except you). The argument is over what the words mean.
John Jay's letter used the word "foreigner," not "alien." To understand the context and intended meaning, you have to understand the lexicon in use at the time the letter was written:
Your convoluted twisting of words to change historical fact to what you want it to mean won't work on anyone but the ignorant.
Good work not challenging him on the assertion that the letter had nothing to do with the president.
There is an NBC requirement but the rest of what you typed is made up. Parenthood is not mentioned in the Constitution. Place of birth is not mentioned in the Constitution.
If you can't admit that you're hopeless.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nobody is arguing what it says (except you). The argument is over what the words mean.
It presents a difference between a Natural Born Citizen and all other citizens.
Your argument is that it doesn't.
You seem to have a real problem with language structure. (There are remedial courses you can take)
There were more than two options at the time.
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.
