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.
Because we know for a fact the Framers did not really care that much.
In fact, they did. John Jay's July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington:
Quote:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen, and eligible for the job he holds.
According to the 14th Amendment and the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Obama isn't even a legal U.S. citizen at all. Obama was born a foreign citizen. British Nationality Act of 1948.
Lest you forget, those born in the U.S. subject to a foreign power and therefore owing allegiance to a foreign power DO NOT have birthright citizenship. Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a non-citizen father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was a non-citizen at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. A Digest of the International Law of the United States: Taken from Documents ... - Google Books
The historical evidence clearly indicates that even after the 14th Amendment was ratified, a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen father was born subject to a foreign power, did NOT meet the 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement to acquire birthright U.S. citizenship, and was therefore NOT a U.S. citizen at birth.
A letter concerning which, like most other things, you have no understanding whatsoever. Jay never mentions "foreign influence" once. That's because he was not concerned about foreign influence on our government. He was concerned about foreign royalty establishing a monarchy on US soil.
22 Article III courts have fulfilled their Constitutional obligation to settle the issues of fact and law regarding President Obama's eligibility. Their decisions are not tentative. They are not mere suggestions. They are conclusion of binding authority. And they are unanimous.
They settled as issues of both fact and law that your arguments are wrong; that your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong; that your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is wrong; that your definition of natural born citizen is wrong. They do not merely disagree with you. They establish you to be wrong as a settled matter of law.
It is really quite pathetic that you would allow your delusions to prevent you from understanding (if not accepting) the nature of this fundamental reality. The falling piano will crush you whether you believe it t be real or not. And it is a settled matter of fact and law that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, fully eligible to the position he has now held for more than four years.
Jay never mentions "foreign influence" once. That's because he was not concerned about foreign influence on our government. He was concerned about foreign royalty establishing a monarchy on US soil.
Jay's letter never says a word about royalty. The exclusion is for all foreigners:
Quote:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
22 Article III courts have fulfilled their Constitutional obligation to settle the issues of fact and law regarding President Obama's eligibility.
Good grief, HD. You're STILL succumbing to logical fallacy :
Quote:
Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice
Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable. Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice
HD = logic FAIL
The actual truth is that those courts cite a SCOTUS case that doesn't even apply to Obama to support their rulings. And YOU fell for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
They settled as issues of both fact and law that your arguments are wrong; that your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong
U.S. Secretaries of State definitively say otherwise.
Quote:
that your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is wrong
It's not my interpretation; it's what Gray himself stated:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. The circumstances of Obama's birth FAIL to meet the 14th Amendment's requirements for birthright citizenship, and FAIL to meet the NAMED conditions of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. As such, Obama isn't even a legal U.S. citizen at all, unless he naturalized as one at some point.
[/b]Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. The circumstances of Obama's birth FAIL to meet the 14th Amendment's requirements for birthright citizenship, and FAIL to meet the NAMED conditions of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. As such, Obama isn't even a legal U.S. citizen at all, unless he naturalized as one at some point.
I admire your tenacity. You are entitled to believe what you WANT to believe. However, there is a reality here. The reality is that the courts don't believe that Wong made "permanent domicile" a condition. The courts believe that Wong made being born on US soil the condition by which Wong was considered a citizen. That's the principle that every court ruling citing Wong has upheld. You may not like it. You may argue eternally that you're right. It doesn't matter. The courts don't agree with you. And the courts are the authority. You're not.
No. It doesn't. Just as it never says a word about "foreign influence." Might IC be actually having an epiphany? Might she suddenly have stumbled upon the fact that Jay's letter does not say what it does not say? Might she have finally discovered that her elaborate and tendentious flights of fancy might not actually be justified by the magical talisman on which she depends so heavily?
Don't hold your breath.
But again, here's a fairly comprehensive review of the actual attitudes towards "foreign influence" held by our Founders and Framers. Notice again that both IC and MichaelNo have made no effort to challenge it's accuracy.
Good grief, HD. You're STILL succumbing to logical fallacy.
It is fascinating that you (and your Aussie pal) depend so heavily on accusations of "logical fallacy" to dismiss simple objective assertions of fact. Too bad an assertion of fact cannot be logically fallacious, because no logic is involved. Assertions are simply true or not. And my assertion is objectively, incontrovertibly true. 22 Article III courts have fulfilled their Constitutional obligation to settle the issues of fact and law regarding President Obama's eligibility.
There is no "appeal to common practice here." There is the simple fact that the US Constitution has prescribed the mechanism with which we settle "cases and controversies" in this country. The US Constitution has granted "judicial power" to the "Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 22 of those courts have exercised that power. They have listened to the exact arguments that IC and MichaelNo obsessively repeat in City-Data's birther threads. They have considered those arguments in the face of the evidence, the law, the precedent and the history. And then they have established the facts and settled the law of this "controversy."
Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen, fully eligible for the position he has now held for more than four years.
I admire your tenacity. You are entitled to believe what you WANT to believe. However, there is a reality here. The reality is that the courts don't believe that Wong made "permanent domicile" a condition.
Gray's ruling explicitly states that having parents permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth in the U.S. is an agreed upon factUPON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the partieswere to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Again...
"present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
No. It doesn't. Just as it never says a word about "foreign influence."
Jay's letter to Washington:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." The Papers of John Jay - View page 1 of 2
The exclusion is for all foreigners. Obama was born a FOREIGN citizen. British Nationality Act of 1948. 14th Amendment.
The circumstances of Obama's birth FAIL to meet the 14th Amendment's requirements for birthright citizenship, and FAIL to meet the NAMED conditions of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. As such, Obama isn't even a legal U.S. citizen at all, unless he naturalized as one at some point. However, a naturalized citizen isn't eligible for POTUS.
Know it like the back of my hand. As 22 Article III courts have proved, it is of no help to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The exclusion is for all foreigners. Obama was born a FOREIGN citizen. British Nationality Act of 1948. 14th Amendment.
Ignoring that Jays's letter is not a US law and that Jay was not a member of the Constitutional convention, under the law a US national or citizen is not a foreigner. And Obama is a natural born US citizen. So he is not and never has been a foreigner.
Gray's ruling explicitly states that having parents permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth in the U.S. is an agreed upon factUPON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED:
Too bad for you then that 1 ) it's not a requirement and 2) that Obama's father was permanently domiciled here, just like Wong's parents
"present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
You underline one characteristic of Wong's parents, I underline another. What makes your characteristic a condition, but doesn't make my characteristic a condition? Answer: your bias. Nothing else. There is no grammatical rule that makes permanent domicile more of a condition than Chinese descent. In fact, since my characteristic comes first, grammatically speaking it has precedence. There is no logical rule that makes permanent domicile more of a condition than Chinese descent.
You have a right to your opinion. You can share that opinion. But, you also need to acknowledge the reality that the courts, who are the authority on this issue, do not concur with your opinion. And in light of that FACT, your energy is best put to use to actually change the law. EVERY lawsuit that birthers lose ADDS to the precedent of President Obama being a natural-born citizen.
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.
:
