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 11-05-2011, 03:25 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Too bad nobody remembered to put that the Constitution.
You are the one lacking the "in".

Under your incomplete thinking, the framers wanted to allow Indians and black people to be presidentially qualified.

 
Old 11-05-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Under your incomplete thinking, the framers wanted to allow Indians and black people to be presidentially qualified.
Do you have a problem with Indians or Blacks being president?

 
Old 11-05-2011, 03:45 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Do you have a problem with Indians or Blacks being president?

Not per se, just everyone except Ron Paul.
 
Old 11-05-2011, 03:49 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Do you have a problem with Indians or Blacks being president?

You're wearing a steel codpiece, right?
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:25 PM
 
12 posts, read 5,003 times
Reputation: 12
The Founding generation understood the meaning of the term "natural born" to have come from the English Common law expression "natural born subjects".

William Rawle,
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. " 1826, A View of the Constitution of the United States.

And was the understanding of the citizens of the states.
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considerded as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, 1795, "A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books"

Alexander Hamilton tolds us specifically where to look for the meanings of terms in Constitution.
"yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:41 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by July0006 View Post
The Founding generation understood the meaning of the term "natural born" to have come from the English Common law expression "natural born subjects".

William Rawle,
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. " 1826, A View of the Constitution of the United States.

And was the understanding of the citizens of the states.
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considerded as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, 1795, "A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books"

Alexander Hamilton tolds us specifically where to look for the meanings of terms in Constitution.
"yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Clap! Clap! Clap!

Maybe you would now like to explain about what exactly the Civil War was fought.
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:42 PM
 
12 posts, read 5,003 times
Reputation: 12
The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the court's understanding of the Minor decision,

"The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:"

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

That last line pretty much sums up the court's understanding of the Minor decision.

"Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

If we read the Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark, we see that given the opportunity to cite Minor as precedent, he doesn't,


In Wong, he wrote,

“And it is this rule [English Common Law], pure and simple, which it is asserted [Justice Gray's opinion] determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

And later he writes,

“I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

Yet when he final does cite the Minor decision, he doesn't mention the definition of "natural born citizen" only the doubts left unresolved by the court,

"I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughterhouse Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve.”

If Minor was considered as precedent, why doesn't he cite it as such.
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Maybe you would now like to explain about what exactly the Civil War was fought.
Why? It would be a discussion completely irrelevant to the thread.
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:46 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Why? It would be a discussion completely irrelevant to the thread.
Your 14th Amendment argument is a product of the Civil War.

Don't you have any better "founding argument" for Natural Born Citizen?
 
Old 11-05-2011, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Your 14th Amendment argument is a product of the Civil War.
And that still has nothing to do with this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
Don't you have any better "founding argument" for Natural Born Citizen?
I don't need one.
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 06:22 PM.

© 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