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.
The bottom line is that the "eligibility issue" is NOT a settled issue until you or anyone can factually proclaim that the Supreme Court will NEVER address this issue again.
Can you make that proclamation?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
So why do you think that you're all-knowing on the subject?
As in the old joke of the hikers and bear, I don't have to be "all-knowing." I only need to know more than you do. And you have admitted explicitly that you don't know very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
All you've done in this thread is speak of past actions. Since when is past actions the foreteller of future cases?
Since stare decisis became the foundation of the Anglo-American system of common law... which at the least predates the origin of the United States of America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
You think you know the answer. You think you're the smart guy. You clearly are just speculating like everyone else on this thread.
Oh.... not "just... like everyone else on this thread." I have a paper trail of legal predictions going back more than three years. They include predictions on at least 147 different decisions in 87 court cases. I have never been wrong once.
So clearly I know something no Birthers know... even thier lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
The only problem is you have a problem admitting that the absolutes that you speak in are not rooted in anything remotely binding. So why do you even attempt?
You sound frustrated AeroGuy. Take a nap. Let the folks who know what they're talking about have the floor.
Not sure why you bothered to post this. Pure speculation on your part. Just like everyone else on this thread. Neither you, myself, or anyone else can foretell what issues will make it to the Supreme Court. And yet here you are speaking in absolutes.
Total nonsense. And you know it.
Nothing nonsensical about it.
There are only two kinds of citizens in the United States. People who are born citizens, and people who are naturalized to become citizens. Obama was born a citizen. He was born a citizen of an American citizen. He's a naturally-born American citizen. The Supreme Court isn't ever going to say otherwise, because there is no legal foundation. Birthers are dreaming when they argue that there is a legal foundation. There is NOT.
Now, if Congress wants to modify the definition of citizenship in this country, they can do so, and they can do it in such a way that under the new definition Obama would not be qualified. However, that new definition wouldn't actually apply to Obama since he would have been elected prior to the revised definition.
I already posted the link for you to go and read yourself. They even cited Minor v. Happersett... the exact passage you Birthers consistently orgasm over... and then directly contradicted your idiotic spin regarding it.
They wrote, "Thus, the Court (in Minor v. Happersett) 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 statement is not a citation of Minor, it's an incorrect interpretation of it. Minor v. Happersett was clearly communicating doubts as to whether those born in the U.S. to aliens or foreign citizen parents were even U.S. citizens at all.
You're making an error in logic. "Citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen."
As in the old joke of the hikers and bear, I don't have to be "all-knowing." I only need to know more than you do. And you have admitted explicitly that you don't know very much.
Since stare decisis became the foundation of the Anglo-American system of common law... which at the least predates the origin of the United States of America.
Oh.... not "just... like everyone else on this thread." I have a paper trail of legal predictions going back more than three years. They include predictions on at least 147 different decisions in 87 court cases. I have never been wrong once.
So clearly I know something no Birthers know... even thier lawyers.
You sound frustrated AeroGuy. Take a nap. Let the folks who know what they're talking about have the floor.
You are just slapping like a girl at this point.
Absolutely the worst response ever. Did you even read what you wrote? Nothing..and I mean nothing....of any substance. I think you're the one who is frustrated by the seemingly simple logic that I used to put you in your place. And it worked, judging by this worthless response.
The fact is, you're speculating and trying to pass it off as fact. You, me, or no one else can foretell what the Supreme Court will address. It's freaking hilarious that you'd even respond in the manner that you responded in this post. Freaking hilarious!!!
1. Wong Kim Ark was not ruled a natural born citizen.
Neither was Virginia Minor.
Hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
2. Even if WKA were relevant (it's not, as WKA was not ruled a natural born citizen), Obama's father does not meet the domicile requirement on which SCOTUS's ruling of Wong Kim Ark as citizen was based. Obama Sr was a transient foreign student who did not remain in the U.S.
The definition of natural born citizen offered in the Wong Kim Ark decision does not even mention domicile. It excludes only two classes under the common law; children of foreign diplomats and alien armies in hostile occupation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
3. Minor's case proceeded on the fact that she was indeed a U.S. citizen, and in determining that to be true, SCOTUS defined Constitutional NBC.
Virgina Minor's citizenship was never even an issue before the court. And it ultimately proved to be completely irrelevant to the decision the court reached. After all... she did not have the right to vote regardless of whether or not she was a citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled a citizen by birth. That's a natural-born citizen.
No.
The only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional 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, ornatural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
I'm really stumped as to how any of you can think that a foreign citizen is a natural born U.S. citizen. Even the U.S. State Department, TO THIS DAY, acknowledges that dual nationality is problematic as to issues of allegiance and conflicting national laws and as such specifically does NOT encourage it.
Quote:
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.
innocent until proven guilty is only true in criminal court.. This wont be a criminal court hearing
That is one of the most ludicrous statements that I've read in some time.
While in civil tort actions the plaintiff is afforded greater latitude, for example the defendant can be compelled to testify in their own behalf as well as present proof of their defense, the burden of prove still lies with the plaintiff.
That statement is not a citation of Minor, it's an incorrect interpretation of it.
Forgive me, prejudiced but anonymous internet guy, but I will take the interpretation of three judges with a combined 90 plus years of legal experience over you any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Minor v. Happersett was clearly communicating doubts as to whether those born in the U.S. to aliens or foreign citizen parents were even U.S. citizens at all.
Clearly you say? Why then wasn't it "clear" to those three judges with 90+ years of legal experience?
Oh that's right... Because Birthers just make up bullsh*t and real judges don't pay attention to it.
That's why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You're making an error in logic. "Citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen."
I make no such error. I instead read the actual decision without ripping fragments out of context and spinning them violently.
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.
