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 11-16-2011, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,047 posts, read 2,826,114 times
Reputation: 699

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
So who was Thomas F. Bayard and what gave him the right to decide who was a NBC?
Not sure if you want to know the answer...he was a Democrat..and a US Senator from Delaware.

 
Old 11-16-2011, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Who was Hinman and what gave him the right to decide who was a citizen. I will tell you who he was. A paid political hatchet man hired by the Democrats.
DC... you do realize (I hope) that in 1885, the Democrats were the conservatives and the Republicans were the progressives.... right?

 
Old 11-16-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Back to Minor...the definition of a natural born citizen was given to satisfy what this term means in the Constitution.
Minor refused to settle the definition of natural born citizen.

That was left for the Wong court a quarter century later.
 
Old 11-16-2011, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,047 posts, read 2,826,114 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Minor refused to settle the definition of natural born citizen.

That was left for the Wong court a quarter century later.

You must be addicted to spin. Wong was never affirmed a natural born citizen. He was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domiciled at his birth.

This means Rubio is a citizen but not a natural born citizen. It means Obama is a perpetual inhabitant..neither a citizen or a natural born citizen.

His father was never domiciled, nor was he a permanent resident. Rubios parents were domiciled and permanent residents at his birth.
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
You must be addicted to spin. Wong was never affirmed a natural born citizen. He was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domiciled at his birth.
Minor was never affirmed a natural born citizen either. So your argument here seems a bit... flaccid.

Again, here is how real judges in real courts making real decisions in real cases understand the Wong decision:

Quote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,047 posts, read 2,826,114 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Before you can connect the dots, you have to actually have dots.

This is a fragment of an unsourced comment from a 1894 magazine article.
The spin continues from the perpetual Obot. The article quotes Secretary Bayard, a Democrat.

The link to the article is here:



Nation Article Bayard
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
The spin continues from the perpetual Obot. The article quotes Secretary Bayard, a Democrat.
It was fragmentary and unsourced quote in an article in a magazine.

Yawn.
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,047 posts, read 2,826,114 times
Reputation: 699
Rubio matches the citizenship standards laid down by Gray in Wong Kim Ark v the United States.

Obama does not match the same standards. His father was not domiciled nor was he a permanent resident.

Obama is NOT a citizen. Obama is not a natural born citizen. Rubio is a citizen. Rubio is not a natural born citizen.
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Rubio matches the citizenship standards laid down by Gray in Wong Kim Ark v the United States.
Thus making him a natural born US citizen. For here are those standards as laid down in that case:

Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
Obama does not match the same standards. His father was not domiciled nor was he a permanent resident.
Read them again. Obama meets them perfectly. He too is a natural born citizen.
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
The spin continues from the perpetual Obot. The article quotes Secretary Bayard, a Democrat.

The link to the article is here:

Nation Article Bayard
Oh... and by the way, it is absolutely a worthwhile article to read.

Among the points it makes is that prior to the 14th Amendment (i.e. from the Framing of the Constitution) nobody doubted that children of foreigners born on US soil were citizens. It points out that "dobts" on that issue were entirely a recent development.

It also makes the point that Minor V. Happersett refused to settle the issue.

It ends with a call for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue... and we all know that just a few years later it did do; in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
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.


Closed Thread


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 06:58 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