You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Birthers Hail Judgeâs Decision That Could âDeposeâ Obama
- Thread starter Mvector
- Start date
Quote from melonduck:
LOL no
YOU are the one who's confusing about your own confusing.
This is what you posted on post #9 of this thread:
Lets try again
This is what you posted on post #9 of this thread:
How about one last time?
This is what you posted on post #9 of this thread:
And I wasn't even talking about President's eligibility.
I was refuting "YOUR FACT" about
with USSC decision in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_Ark
and here's your post #10
You asked for someone to cite you a link that actually shows US Supreme Court decision, not just definition of Natural Born.
That's exactly what I gave you.
So, who's confused now?
You are...
The very first sentence of your link shows your confusion.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent regarding the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
See that... it says citizenship clause. Not defintion of natural born citizen.
LOL You must be reading the special "lefty" version of the Drudge Report.Quote from Mvector:
It is all a mute point now - go look at drudgereport.com!
"President Obama signs Executive Order #33666 allowing 'multi-layer pdf file' long form Birth Certificates as new legal norm for proof of eligibility"
An executive order wouldn't apply in this situation, anyway.
Quote from jem:
You are...
The very first sentence of your link shows your confusion.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent regarding the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
See that... it says citizenship clause. Not defintion of natural born citizen.
And you are still arguing about something that doesn't need to be argued.
Why do you need someone or some group to tell you exactly word by word what it means by "Natural Born" before you can acknowledge what it already means naturally?
Natural Born should already means born on own soil/country without having anyone else tell you what it is exactly.
Or, maybe you're expecting "Natural Born" to mean something totally different such born out of vagina, instead of C section?
Or, maybe your expecting "Natural Born" to mean born from natural sex between male and female, instead of artificial insemination?
Or, you're just trolling.
Quote from melonduck:
And you are still arguing about something that doesn't need to be argued.
Why do you need someone or some group to tell you exactly word by word what it means by "Natural Born" before you can acknowledge what it already means naturally?
Natural Born should already means born on own soil/country without having anyone else tell you what it is exactly.
Or, maybe you're expecting "Natural Born" to mean something totally different such born out of vagina, instead of C section?
Or, maybe your expecting "Natural Born" to mean born from natural sex between male and female, instead of artificial insemination?
Or, you're just trolling.
Show me links with argument and evidence supporting your definition. I am open minded as to the definition.
I am not arguing for any particular definition.
I am just saying based on my research I have seen good arguments for 2 american parents or born on our soil.
"Us"? you mean YOU, who clearly considers everyone and everything, all evidence including any facts, even common sense itself, suddenly no good and wrong if it doesn't fit with your nonsense.Quote from jem:
ok... show us the weight of legal and scholarly evidence.
There is a mass of Supreme Court opinion, findings and expressions, using the words -natural born citizen- along with the original grounding principles the founders were guided by, and subsequently courts also use for US Constitutional and general law, that defines one status for citizen and one for alien.
Apart from being obvious to any rational person , it's all over Google for dimwits such as yourself.
Go educate yourself. You're a birther so you need it.
Quote from stu:
"Us"? you mean YOU, who clearly considers everyone and everything, all evidence including any facts, even common sense itself, suddenly no good and wrong if it doesn't fit with your nonsense.
There is a mass of Supreme Court opinion, findings and expressions, using the words -natural born citizen- along with the original grounding principles the founders were guided by, and subsequently courts also use for US Constitutional and general law, that defines one status for citizen and one for alien.
Apart from being obvious to any rational person , it's all over Google for dimwits such as yourself.
Go educate yourself. You're a birther so you need it.
more troll bullshit from stu.
I will help you with the next post.
wikipedias first cite on the issue. Not some recent political document but a quote from history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
"Interpretations of the clause
19th and early 20th century interpretations
After the original Constitution was ratified, various people opined about the meaning of this clause.
U.S. government officials in the Civil War era
John Bingham
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.[11]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[12]"
I call your attention to this sentence...
"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
"Interpretations of the clause
19th and early 20th century interpretations
After the original Constitution was ratified, various people opined about the meaning of this clause.
U.S. government officials in the Civil War era
John Bingham
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.[11]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[12]"
I call your attention to this sentence...
"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen"
Just to show what an ignorant buffoon Stu is.. here is some more from wikipedia...
some for the two parent idea... some perhaps not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
Treatises and academic publications
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that
every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.[15]
During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]
An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18]
Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[19] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, âno person, except a native-born citizenâ; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase ânative-born citizenâ is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, ânative citizenâ should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.[20]
some for the two parent idea... some perhaps not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
Treatises and academic publications
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that
every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.[15]
During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]
An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18]
Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[19] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, âno person, except a native-born citizenâ; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase ânative-born citizenâ is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, ânative citizenâ should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.[20]
So now you Obama loons. You see, there is quite a bit of weight on the side which says a natural born citizen is someone --
born here of two parents without allegiance to a foreign country.
so please you obama loons get educated before you post. this is a complex issue and not for the ignorant. if a court chooses to define the issue it will get appealed in a hurry.
born here of two parents without allegiance to a foreign country.
so please you obama loons get educated before you post. this is a complex issue and not for the ignorant. if a court chooses to define the issue it will get appealed in a hurry.