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.
If I didn't know better, I might think you're worried about him.
if that was arpaio's idea for security against a drug cartel assassin then, yes, i'd be very worried for him.
but....... joe's actions suggest he doesn't give much validity to the threats and given the fact that there has yet to be any attempt on his life i'm partial to agree with him.
If you have any other direct primary source for the inclusion of the NBC clause for Presidential eligibility in the Constitution besides Jay's letter to Washington, post it.
I already did; posted several pages back, a link to the Constitutional Convention notes and discussion by the very authors who were there.
not once did Washington mention or ever it was noted any opinion that was the same opinion by John Jay. Washington barely participated in the convention, and mostly just was there to sign the final document.
There was many mentions to Blackstone, and Blackstone defined NBC (actually NBS) as one born within the domain/dominion of the their home country since he was the expert on what is Common Law.
Blackstone was one of the most used and quoted sources during the drafting of the Constitution. John Jay? Not once.
The notes and documentation from the Constitutional Convention is available to anyone.
No. You posted no other source for the Constitution's NBC requirement for Presidential eligibility.
So the notes from the Constitutional Convention where they sourced Blackstone and his claim on NBC/NBS is not "source"? and he wasn't the only one who was sourced?
Quote:
He didn't have to. The Committee of Eleven inserted the wording "natural born citizen" without comment.
You're the one alleging that Washington used John Jay's letter to support HIS version of NBC. If Washington didn't provide any support to John Jay, without mention John Jay's definition of NBC, then how can you SAY that the Constitutional Convention went with John Jay's definition?
Since the US Constitution doesn't DEFINE NBC, then its assumed that at the time of the Drafting, our founders knew already what it meant; that it carried over the English Common Law definition of Natural Born Subject.
The court in Wong Kim Ark and Minor said this pretty much; Wong Kim specifically mentioned Common Law (in reference to English Common Law) and in Minor the court even mentioned birthright citizenship
Quote:
The Convention adopted the modified provision without further debate.
Please show us where in the US Constitution that NBC is defined.
Ooops you can't. So we go with what our founders knew at the time. not some arbitrary definition made up by a long dead Swiss Philosopher who didn't even use Natural Born citizen in his writing (since FRENCH was his native language)
you use a paper that says NBC is implied through birthright citizenship
from your paper:
Quote:
The Supreme Court expressed the basic notion of this approach many years prior to its publication: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had” to common law at the time of the Founding.
And your paper even states that there is no proof of discussion that was sourced from John Jay
Quote:
The phrase “natural born citizen” likely originated in a letter John Jay sent to George Washington, though there is no proof of this in the recorded deliberations of the Convention.
More proof that you only read two sentences in the paper you thought supported your claim:
Quote:
Charles Gordon, having surveyed most of this history and beyond, concluded that English law gave natural born citizen status to foreign-born children, and that “it is hardly likely that the Framers intended to deal less generously with their own children.”
So much fail on your part
Quote:
The constitutional minimum approach agrees with the naturalized born approach in that above the constitutional minimum, Congress can grant natural born status by statute—that is, whoever is a citizen under statutory law in force at the time of one’s birth is a natural born citizen.
How can you so dishonestly think that the report supports anything you say?
Quote:
The Supreme Court also endorsed this view: “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject . . . .” The Court went on to say that jus soli “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.” The Court has reaffirmed this analysis in later cases.
thinking anyone wouldn't read the report?
Quote:
It would be fair, then, to stipulate that jus soli forms a part of the constitutional minimum implicit in the Natural Born Citizen Clause.The Fourteenth Amendment also subsequently confirmed the principle of jus soli, though it did not use the “natural born” language
So the notes from the Constitutional Convention where they sourced Blackstone and his claim on NBC/NBS is not "source"? and he wasn't the only one who was sourced?
Blackstone ISN'T sourced. St. George Tucker opined on it in his 1803 treatise. 1803... AFTER the fact.
In fact, EVERYTHING you quoted is nothing more than commentary written significantly AFTER the fact. NONE of it is a primary source document either to or from a Constitutional Convention delegate.
Quote:
You're the one alleging that Washington used John Jay's letter to support HIS version of NBC. If Washington didn't provide any support to John Jay, without mention John Jay's definition of NBC, then how can you SAY that the Constitutional Convention went with John Jay's definition?
It is the ONLY primary source tying the NBC clause requirement to the Constitutional Convention. If you have some other primary source document, post it. So far, you have nothing.
Quote:
So we go with what our founders knew at the time. not some arbitrary definition made up by a long dead Swiss Philosopher who didn't even use Natural Born citizen in his writing (since FRENCH was his native language)
Since when is John Jay a French philosopher?
Quote:
The court in Wong Kim Ark and Minor said this pretty much; Wong Kim specifically mentioned Common Law (in reference to English Common Law) and in Minor the court even mentioned birthright citizenship
Trumping that, Minor v. Happersett DIRECTLY addresses both common law AND nomenclature of the time in regards to NBC:
Quote:
"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."
You STILL haven't made your case. Not surprising... the facts simply do not support your opinion.
Originally Posted by InformedConsent;21490904Trumping that, Minor v. Happersett DIRECTLY addresses both common law [I
AND[/i] nomenclature of the time in regards to NBC:You STILL haven't made your case. Not surprising... the facts simply do not support your opinion.
Damn, that quote looks so - chopped-off. I wonder what the next few sentences say?
Quote:
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.
Hey, look at that! Minor v. Happersett specifically mentions de solis citizenship as included by some authorities, and they make it clear that they're not about to rule on it. Far from "directly addressing it", they're flat-out stating that they are not going to address it.
So, two strikes against using your carefully truncated Minor v. Happersett citation:
- Your cite, in context, makes it clear that the judges are aware of the arguments for jus solis citizenship, and that their ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
- Your cite is obiter dictum, i.e., not legally binding.
All in all, it's not a very authoritative citation, then, is it?
Damn, that quote looks so - chopped-off. I wonder what the next few sentences say?
Hey, look at that! Minor v. Happersett specifically mentions de solis citizenship as included by some authorities
...for CITIZENSHIP, not NBC.
Here's where reading comprehension plays an important role. Let's look at the sentence...
Quote:
"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."
They stated that some authorities claim that children born within the jurisdiction regardless of their parents' citizenship status are citizens and that there are doubts about that. They then state that they do not address those doubts.
Here's where reading comprehension plays an important role. Let's look at the sentence...They stated that some authorities claim that children born within the jurisdiction regardless of their parents' citizenship status are citizens and that there are doubts about that. They then state that they do not address those doubts.
Reading is fundamental.
Ah, I see. When one basically assumes that there simply must be two sorts of citizenship by birth, I guess that sentence could be parsed like that. When one does not consider underwear on the head a sartorial option, it's pretty clear that they're discussing two ways of determining the same question.
It's still nothing but dicta, and the case wasn't about citizenship, much less natural-born citizenship anyway, so - no more legally binding than whatshisname's letter.
It's still nothing but dicta, and the case wasn't about citizenship, much less natural-born citizenship anyway, so - no more legally binding than whatshisname's letter.
Not only is it mere dicta, it was cited in Wong Kim Ark to prove the exact opposite point from that IC is trying to claim.
When interpreting a Supreme Court decision I feel obligated to place much higher reliance on the opinion of the Supreme Court itself than some tendentious and agenda driven propagandist.
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.
