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.
"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."
with the exception of a handful of birther attorneys the entire legal community does not believe that minor v. happersett gives an exclusive definition of NBC.
And with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
it does
Not to mention any number of very clear documents from the founders in congressional records should anyone choose to look for them.
I have provided image copies of a number of these very clear definitions for those who care to educate themselves.
Unfortunately there remain those who CHOOSE TO LOOK UNEDUCATED AND STUPID. Perhaps they are.
Sad state of affairs really.
As I said anyone able to read a 3rd grade primer and understand it can look at some very limited documents and clearly understand that a "natural born citizen" is one born in the US of 2 citizen parents.
Certainly not rocket science ... but looking at the comments of some one would certainly think it was.
Give up the "birther attorney" rhetoric or "birther" statements.
This is a legitimate constitutional argument.
Trying to malign those who are arguing the case only makes those who champion the Obama cause in that manner look like "flat world thinkers" ... being those who went along with the mass as science was telling them the world was actually round.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
BTW: Steve thanks for the ping ... this shoved my page view to well over 6000 on this subject today.
The more exposure this matter gets the more those with normal thinking ability we collect who are actually tired of the bull-crap "progressive agenda" being foisted on the unsuspecting.
Just a heads up I am not a Democrat (never have been) no longer a Republican either. Worst nightmare of both now. One of those unpredictable independents who actually can think on my own.
See ya around.
Keep on chipping away … in the end we will all be a winner because of your efforts
Are we on a reading comprehensive challenged forum here?
I believe so. Some of these posters are from the pro Obama eligibility websites called The Fogbow and Dr. Conspiracy who's sole purpose is to mislead people on natural born citizenship in order to make the case Obama is eligible. Their job is to subvert and twist precedent case law in order to fit their agenda which is anyone can be president, one born to one citizen parent and a alien father or even people who are born anchor babies from illegal parents. It's been a very bad week for them due to the Georgia ballot challenge against Obama being authorized by the sitting judge. Now a judge in Alabama has authorized a hearing like Georgia. Hawaii too. Go to those websites and you will see what I am talking about.
And with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
again, outside of a small group of birther attorneys, the entire legal community read US v wong kim ark to mean that a parent's citizenship has no affect on the US citizenship status of a child born in the US ( see ankeny v daniels ).
if i'm wrong then obviously your theory will prevail in court........... haven't seen that happen yet.
Prove it. Prove me wrong. Show me one current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who believes that somebody born in the US with a citizen parent is not a natural born citizen.
Quote:
2. The SCOTUS IS THE FULL WEIGHT OF HISTORY ... thats all she wrote.
Fair enough:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. 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.
Cherry picking a quote from the opinion which lays out the history of jurisprudence on the subject does not help you when you simultaneously ignore one of the main legal holdings of the Court in their opinion.
Quote:
The only political divide is between the Constitutioanal case law and those WHO HOPE IT WILL BE IGNORED. Let me give you a hint ... IT WON'T BE!
I'm going to side with the experts who know how to spell constitutional.
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.
