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.
Says the guy who cant comprehend that I'm not a birther.
Walks. Quacks. Duck. You are a Birther by even the most stringent definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No they arent.. There is a difference between citizen, and natural born
But not between "natural-born" "native-born" or simply "born."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Natural born, native born, and nationalized are 3 different classificaitions. Despite historical dude's claim that the total is 2.
This is an idiotic lie and cannot be supported by any credible evidence whatsoever.
"Native born" and "natural born" have always been used completely interchangeably by American courts, by experts on American law, by common usage, and by SCOTUS.
Again... from the comprehensive, brilliant and scholarly Congressional Research Service report:
Quote:
Under common, modern understanding and later Supreme Court explanations, “natural born” citizens would include “native born” U.S. citizens, that is, those born physically within the borders of the country, but might also include others whose citizenships were “obtained by birth” in other ways. The Supreme Court of the United States has on several occasions also used the terminology “native born” citizens or “native” citizens to distinguish such citizenship “at birth” from those who have obtained U.S. citizenship through “naturalization.” Even considering that the Court was using the terms in a narrow sense, and putting aside for the moment the issue of children born abroad of U.S. citizens, it is clear that the Supreme Court in these instances indicated that, at the least, all of those persons obtaining citizenship by birth within the geographic area of the United States (i.e., “native born” citizens) were eligible for the presidency (as being within the category of “natural born” citizens), as opposed to “naturalized” citizens. In Schneider v. Rusk, the Supreme Court appeared to use the term “native born” as synonymous and interchangeable with the term “natural born” in referencing those citizens eligible for the presidency, as opposed to “naturalized” citizens who are not eligible:
Quote:
We start with the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
"Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" (rememer this phrase which you claimed doesnt exist?) WRONG AGAIN. The term has existed for ages.
Both parents had to be US citizens, neither could be non-US citizen because then they would owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
US Supreme Court Perkins vs Elg was declaired a natural born citizen because BOTH parents were US Citizens.
Naturalized came about due to marriage of US Citizens, US Supreme Court Kwock Jan Fat v. White
There are numerous court rulings to show you wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
"Native born" and "natural born" have always been used completely interchangeably by American courts, by experts on American law, by common usage, and by SCOTUS.
This is an idiotic lie and cannot be supported by any credible evidence whatsoever.
"Native born" and "natural born" have always been used completely interchangeably by American courts, by experts on American law, by common usage, and by SCOTUS.
Again... from the comprehensive, brilliant and scholarly Congressional Research Service report:
Yeah much of books, encyclopedias, legal findings have used the terms interchangeably through the years:
Why is anyone arguing this? It's been discussed endlessly and those who still don't get it are clueless and defiant for a reason. They can not be taught, they can not be convinced - regardless of the evidence you present.
You see, they think they are smarter than everybody else - regardless of the entity's or person's qualifications, merit, or endorsement. They are the only ones who have not been brainwashed.
One simply can not argue with these people. It is pointless and leads to absolutely nothing. It's akin to trying to convince the Pope that there is no god - it can't be done.
Unless you are arguing with this type of person purely for entertainment, you are wasting your time and effort.
There are numerous court rulings to show you wrong.
Wong Kim Ark is now the precedent. Funny thing about cases, the one that is ruled last on the subject, is the one that is used a precedent
Quote:
An idiotic lie.. See I can do it also
Its only a lie if you can't back it up. Historian has backed up his claims showing from published research that there are no 3 classes citizens in this country
There we have, it.. nothing beats a google internet search.. hahaa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Wong Kim Ark is now the precedent. Funny thing about cases, the one that is ruled last on the subject, is the one that is used a precedent
Wrong, because that only delt with him being a citizen, not natural born..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Its only a lie if you can't back it up. Historian has backed up his claims showing from published research that there are no 3 classes citizens in this country
Where's your proof that there are?
1A) We have people who are born here with 2 parents
1B) People who are born here with 1 parent a citizen, (might legally be the same)
1C) People who are born here with 0 parents being citizens (i.e. illegal aliens)
2) People who married a citizen
3) People who become a citizen through the citizenship process.
Thats AT LEAST 3 possibly 5. The question remains if 1A-AC are THE SAME..
Buying into the intellectual dishonesty that there is even an actual legal question here makes you a birther.
No its not. One would have to claim that Obama isnt a citizen, something I've NEVER claimed and wont claim. Its your problem if you dont understand the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
I sincerely hope you do NOT have a license to practice law, anywhere.
I bet I have more legal history than you do..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Learning the difference between holding and dicta and what stare decisis means is something law students learn in the first week of class.
And deflection is something people like you do who dont want legal questions answered because you might be afraid of the result.. Because that has nothing to do with answering the question
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.
