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.
Not a particularly well informed one either. Will add him to ignore. Thanks. If I wanted to be a troll on this forum, I would at least make some efforts...
Last edited by native born citizen; 06-29-2013 at 05:20 PM..
Yes, birth on soil to citizen parents is a sufficient but not necessary condition to be considered a natural born citizen. As the Court in United States v Wong Kim Ark so carefully explained: A natural born citizen is anyone born on soil, subject to our jurisdiction, and those born abroad to citizen parents are not, under common law, natural born, but rather are naturalized citizens by statute.
I am looking forward to help people understand that the court explicitly rejected Vattel. I am sure most birthers are not familiar with the history of the case and its rulings.
The Supreme Court was faced with a lower court's decision, ruling that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a US citizen.
In order to determine if this was indeed the case, the court observed that our Constitution mentions citizenship in only a few places: the power of congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization, the term citizens of the United States and the term natural born citizen.
Observing that there are thus two kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized, the court was faced with the statutes that denied citizenship to Wong Kim Ark through naturalization. Thus, in order to find that WKA was a citizen, they had to find that he was a natural born citizen.
The Court observed that the term Natural Born had been left undefined in the Constitution and ruled that therefore its meaning has to be found in the Common Law.
The Court then looked at the Common Law before during and after the revolution and found that the term "natural born" before the revolution was defined in English Common Law.
The court then ruled that
The same rule was in force...
The Court presents an incredible wealth of analysis which I am more than happy to dive into with those interested but for the moment I'd like to focus on the following
The appellants had argued that under our Common Law it was the rule of Jus Sanguinis that had prevailed and the court rejected this argument, observing that
and
Finally the court looked at the 14th Amendment and found it to be declarative of Common Law and ruled
ROTFL... For a moment I thought that Nonarchist had serious arguments to make... Boy was I wrong...
I too can be a troll and accurate at the same 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.
