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.
There you go again... running on about what I "wish." Based on simple objective reality, the only individuals here whose wishes appear unsatisfied are you and IC. Pick up the newspaper. Obama actually is the President of the United States. If I have any unfulfilled wishes, they lay elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
The fact remains that the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case did not determine Wong to be a natural born citizen, as he was ruled to be a "citizen of the United States".
The fact remains that even Justice Fuller did not believe that to be true. 22 subsequent courts also have decided that is not true. In fact... I can find no competent legal authority who understands that decision quite the same Procrustean way birthers do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
The SCOTUS had the golden opportunity, right there and then, to rule Wong a natural born citizen had they really believed he was such ................. but they DIDN'T......... even after all the lengthy and exhaustive examination on the matter and all the weighing of English law and natural born subject stuff, Wong was ruled a "citizen of the US" and NOT a natural born citizen, that was a stretch in itself on Gray's part, for Wong to even get that.
The universe is just filled with missed "golden opportunities." I could have gotten in on the ground level with Microsoft. The Avalanche could have scored on that critical power-play. Claus von Stauffenberg could have put the bomb on the other side of the conference table leg.
And yes, Justice Gray could have more effectively shut up birthers a century later by changing his wording in single sentence.
But back here in the real universe, nobody with more than a brain stem needs that sort of frantic hairsplitting to understand the WKA decision. Justice Fuller certainly got it. 22 subsequent courts get it. I get it.
We still have no clear insight into your inability to get what everybody else finds easy to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Tell us again Frank, about how in the English common law, where an alien becomes a subject because his child is already a natural born subject...........that was the most hilarious nonsense of all from you, this nonsense Fuller invention of yours, just doesn't cut it by comparison, although it was a squirm worthy of note.
LOL... it appears that you don't get most things. You certainly still are not within light years of getting Lord Coke's argument, that's for sure.
Stay away from the stove, heavy machinery or anything that could explode.
the Wong Kim Ark case which remains the only SCOTUS decision that has ever been cited by any subsequent court as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.
In error.
The reference: "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."
That is demonstrably false. Not only do Senators Howard (author of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause) and Trumbull (Judiciary Committee Chairman) directly contradict that assertion, so did SCOTUS in an earlier decision:
" '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.'
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Slaughterhouse Cases
Obama was a subject of a foreign state born within the U.S. Obama is NOT eligible.
Once again, you demonstrate that you must really, really hate the Constitution. Because the Constitution has given those courts the authority to decide what is in error and what is not.
And they have decided that you are in error and that I am not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The reference: "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."
That is demonstrably false.
No. It is not. When a referee makes a bad call that's contrary to the rules, the error belongs to the referee, Not the rules.
You fail fractally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not only do Senators Howard (author of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause) and Trumbull (Judiciary Committee Chairman) directly contradict that assertion,
This was proved to be lie... just a few pages back. Your dishonesty is not merely deep, it is shameless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
so did SCOTUS in an earlier decision:
And people who understand how the law work knows that later decisions are more authoritative than early decisions. Especially when the later decision goes into detail on how the earlier decision was not a decision at all. Here's what Justice Gray had to say about your citation to the Slaughterhouse Cases:
Quote:
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.
In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.
Cohens v. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheat. 264, 399.
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
What is particularly delicious there is not only does Justice Gray eviscerate any claim that the Slaughterhouse dicta you quoted has any authority, he used Minor V, Happersett to do it. Yes... the reason he quotes Minor is to directly contradict the claim that children of aliens are not citizens.
It really sucks to be a birther.
It is one of my favorite passages in the whole WKA decision.
Last edited by Nonarchist; 04-20-2013 at 12:23 PM..
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.
