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.
And to Justice Gray, Justice Fuller, Government Attorney Collins, 23 subsequent US courts the Congressional Research Service, and every recognized legal or constitutional authority who has bothered to comment.
Off to hike the Norris Geyer Basin... have a great day.
The concept "question asked and answered" is an inviolate tenet of court decision legal precedent.
Quote:
...neither Supreme Court nor Tenth Circuit precedent relied upon by the this court adequately addresses the question asked and answered: "Whether a federal prosecution pursuant to the ACA [Assimilative Crimes Act] for violating a state gun control statute violates an individual's Second Amendment rights."
If you cannot force non-minority students to participate in an integration plan, could they be encouraged to volunteer? This was the question asked and answered in MILLIKEN v. BRADLEY II (1977).
...the ultimatum question asked and answered in Katz should shortly be transmuted into something like the post-Katz "reasonable expectation of privacy" formula. That formula is an inevitable first step in the direction of administrability
The proper question for this Court is whether the Fourth Circuit correctly held that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to establish an indefinite civil commitment program for any individual in BOP custody deemed to be sexually dangerous. This is the question asked and answered by the district court and the Fourth Circuit.
Justice Grayhimself states explicitly what "the question asked and answered" is in the closing paragraph of the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion,...
*namely*,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Quote:
the Congressional Research Service
Wow.
You DO know that Maskell (the CSR report's author) lied and deliberately misrepresented SCOTUS's ruling to support the conclusion reached in the Congressional Research Service report, no?
Here's what Maskell wrote in the Congressional Research Service report:
Quote:
"In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen....”
But here's what SCOTUS actually said in that case:
Quote:
"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country."
I've posted links to both. There are significant differences in what Maskell wrote and what were SCOTUS's actual words: "Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." Just this last December, I was temporarily "physically in" Koh Samui and Koh Pha Ngan Thailand (Full Moon Party island ), but still permanently domiciled in the U.S. "Physically in" and "permanently domiciled in" simply are NOT interchangeable. Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require one to be "a citizen." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
Maskell deliberately lied and misrepresented SCOTUS by changing the words to try to prove the report's conclusion. There would be no need to lie and deliberately misrepresent SCOTUS if the report's conclusion were actually true. As the "report" is forced to resort to a lie and the deliberate misrepresentation of SCOTUS, it is fatally flawed and has no credibility.
Justice Grayhimself states explicitly what "the question asked and answered" is in the closing paragraph of the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion,...
*namely*,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Wow.
You DO know that Maskell (the CSR report's author) lied and deliberately misrepresented SCOTUS's ruling to support the conclusion reached in the Congressional Research Service report, no?
I've posted links to both. There are significant differences in what Maskell wrote and what were SCOTUS's actual words: "Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." Just this last December, I was temporarily "physically in" Koh Samui and Koh Pha Ngan Thailand (Full Moon Party island ), but still permanently domiciled in the U.S. "Physically in" and "permanently domiciled in" simply are NOT interchangeable. Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require one to be "a citizen." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
Maskell deliberately lied and misrepresented SCOTUS by changing the words to try to prove the report's conclusion. There would be no need to lie and deliberately misrepresent SCOTUS if the report's conclusion were actually true. As the "report" is forced to resort to a lie and the deliberate misrepresentation of SCOTUS, it is fatally flawed and has no credibility.
Your problem is that you deliberately misread court decisions. A description of a person's legal situation is not a legal requirement that has to be met. Your logic would require that the ONLY citizens would be persons born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent that are loyal to China but who have a "permanent" domicile in the United States. Since you are insisting that this definition is exclusive and definitive, then all of us who aren't of Chinese descent, or whose parents aren't loyal to China, or whose parents don't have "permanent" domicile, cannot be citizens. That would apply to most Americans.
If you are saying that the definition isn't exclusive and definitive, then you can't insist they apply to anyone, TO ANYONE, not involved in these legal cases.
Maskell didn't lie. He provided a faithful report of the case.
Your problem is that you deliberately misread court decisions.
Not at all. There simply is no misreading what Gray explicitly wrote:
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion,...
*namely*,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Question asked and answered. Gray even very deliberately and explicitly restated the question, hence the inclusion of "the single question" and "namely" in the closing paragraph of the ruling.
Quote:
Maskell didn't lie. He provided a faithful report of the case.
Deliberately changing the words to change the meaning is NOT a faithful report of the case.
Again, there are significant differences between what Maskell 'claims' SCOTUS said, and what SCOTUS actually said. The lies and misrepresentations are blatantly clear...
Here's what Maskell wrote in the Congressional Research Service report:
Quote:
"In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “it is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen....”
But here's what SCOTUS actually said in that case:
Quote:
"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country."
"Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." Just this last December, I was temporarily "physically in" Koh Samui and Koh Pha Ngan Thailand, but still permanently domiciled in the U.S. "Physically in" and "permanently domiciled in" simply are NOT interchangeable. Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require one to be "a citizen." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
Maskell deliberately lied and misrepresented SCOTUS by changing the words to try to prove the report's conclusion. There would be no need to lie and deliberately misrepresent SCOTUS if the report's conclusion were actually true. As the "report" is forced to resort to lies and the deliberate misrepresentations of SCOTUS, it is fatally flawed and has no credibility.
Not at all. There simply is no misreading what Gray explicitly wrote:
Obviously there is. You do it over and over and over.
The description of the plaintiff is just the description of the plaintiff.
If a judge wrote that Mary Harry was a white woman filing for divorce when her husband suddenly died, and because the divorce wasn't completed, she gets to inherit Mr Harry's estate, does that men that only white women get to inherit their husbands' estates?
Of course not. But that's how you are deliberately misreading these court cases. Taking descriptions of plaintiffs and insisting that those descriptions are criteria for the rulings.
Obviously there is. You do it over and over and over.
The description of the plaintiff is just the description of the plaintiff.
Seems you just don't like the facts.
The question asked and answered, as explicitly writtenby Gray himself:
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion,...
*namely*,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Question asked and answered, clearly communicated by Gray's explicit use of "the single question" and "namely" followed by the exact conditions considered by the Court in this case in the closing paragraph of the ruling.
Look at any other SCOTUS ruling. Most don't specifically restate the EXACT question before the Court in their closing paragraphs as Gray did, allowing for wiggle room in interpretation in many cases. However, Gray specifically DID NOT allow for such in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Why would I be unhappy? Every court ruling has agreed with me. You, not so much. But you are insisting that YOUR reading of the ruling is the only possible one. If every judge who's cited this ruling disagrees with you, and agrees with me, then I have no reason to be unhappy. You do. Which explains your tireless repetition of your misinterpretations. You do realize that saying it over and over and over again will not make it come true?
The ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you mistakenly believe it does.
Quote:
Every court ruling has agreed with me.
Quote all the SCOTUS rulings stating that those born in the U.S. to non-permanently domiciled foreign citizens acquire citizenship at birth. We'll wait....
The ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you mistakenly believe it does. Quote all the SCOTUS rulings stating that those born in the U.S. to non-permanently domiciled foreign citizens acquire citizenship at birth. We'll wait....
The ruling US v Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you mistakenly believe it does. And hey, I've got several court decisions that agree with me. You don't. So sorry. It must really upset you.
The ruling US v Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you mistakenly believe it does.
No one has to think or interpret anything. Justice Gray made the ruling's intent and limitations abundantly clear:
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion,...
*namely*,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
Question asked and answered, clearly communicated by Gray's explicit use of "the single question" and "namely" followed by the exact conditions considered by the Court in this case in the closing paragraph of the ruling.
Look at any other SCOTUS ruling. Most don't specifically restate the EXACT question before the Court in their closing paragraphs as Gray did, allowing for wiggle room in interpretation in many cases. However, Gray specifically DID NOT allow for such in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Again, I'm sorry you're unhappy about that.
Quote:
And hey, I've got several court decisions that agree with me.
Then you should have no problem quoting all the SCOTUS rulings stating that those born in the U.S. to non-permanently domiciled foreign citizens acquire citizenship at birth. Do it. We'll wait....
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.
), but still permanently domiciled in the U.S. "Physically in" and "permanently domiciled in" simply are NOT interchangeable. Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require one to be "a citizen." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
