Bio not provided
That's all dicta, not precedent. This is the precedent that has been used ever since to make those born in the country citizens, " ...becomes at the time of his birth a citizen
of the United States.". It's right there in black and white that they DON'T call him "natural born". Show one instance in the opinion were the court writes "Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen of the United States of America."
10 months ago on “Birtherism” and the Tyranny of Ignorance
Liar. The court NEVER called Wong a natural born citizen. Here's the decision;
"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
domicile 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."
Do you see the words "natural born" in there anywhere? In fact they specifically call him just a "citizen" even though the lower court had called him a "natural born citizen". The Wong case supports the birthers not the Obots.
@smrstrauss Wait a minute you said earlier that nbC meant the same as nbS which requires birth in the country. Now you say it means citizen at birth. Which one is it?
1 year, 5 months ago on “Birtherism” and the Tyranny of Ignorance
@smrstrauss So according to you the definition of nbC is not universal but varies by country and also a child born outside the US to two citizen parents is not eligible but a child born in the US to two transient or illegal aliens is eligible.
@realitycheck1776 @DrConspiracy @smrstrauss Of course it's simplistic. It's a stupid blog not a college lecture.
@smrstrauss So you're saying nbC means citizen at birth under any circumstances? You don't have to be born in the country. That means nbC is not the same as common law nbS.
@DrConspiracy @smrstrauss It's still only personal opinion. Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics. Even the smartest people can be wrong.
@DrConspiracy @chillydogg1 @AlCum @R C Jackman How do you know? Look it up on Google dumbass.
@smrstrauss So you're saying the definition of nbC is not universal and varies by country? It that case your assertion that nbC had to mean the same in America as nbS meant in England falls by the wayside. Alcum states "Natural born citizen means what it ALWAYS has meant,..." Are you right or is he? Also Tucker and Rawle are expressing their personal opinions and are no more authoritative than you or I.
@AlCum @R C Jackman And how do you support that definition when there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?
@AlCum LOL, you're funny! Wait I meant to say you're a joke! The idea that the Framers used "natural born citizen" when they could have just used "born a citizen", which was the first draft btw, is so insane it's laughable.
1 year, 6 months ago on “Birtherism” and the Tyranny of Ignorance
@AlCum You know what your fucking delusional. I hope they let you out of the institution soon
@AlCum She's an ambassador? She's not a diplomat you moron she's an aristocrat.
@AlCum It's really your contention that the Framers had "born a citizen" on the first draft, changed it to "natural born citizen" and intended for that to mean "born a citizen". You sir are insane.
@AlCum @chillydogg1 No. It said children of foreigners might be citizens. It's right there in black and white. Your interpretation is just flat out incorrect. If you think this :
"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, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
does not say that a nbC is someone born in a country to citizen parents you are beyond all reason and logic.
@GregoryConterio @AlCum You do realize that under your definition Kate Middleton could have her baby here and we could have a President who was the King of England, right? Do you really think that's what the Framers had in mind? It's exactly to guard against such a possibility that they only made eligible people who were wholly, solely and only American.
@HistorianDude Not to mention Jay's letter clearly states the intention of the change was to keep foreign influence out the the presidency.
@HistorianDude That's ridiculous. If you have the phrase "born citizen" and you put the word "natural" in front of it of course the meaning changes. That's basic grammar. So assuming nbC means baC what then is the definition of "natural" in natural born citizen?
@HistorianDude @smrstrauss1 @AlCum They were wrong. At one time millions of people KNEW the Universe revolved around the Earth. And then there was Galileo.
@GregoryConterio @chillydogg1 @AlCum Seriously? Natural born citizen means born in a country to citizen parents. None of them fit that profile and are therefore ineligible. Just look at it grammatically. If natural born citizen means born a citizen then the word natural is completely meaningless. I've already shown you that the Framers changed the wording from baC to nbC. So, assuming nbC equals baC, tell me the definition of the word "natural" in natural born citizen?
@HistorianDude @GregoryConterio @TellTheTruth1 Why would they have to say "be considered as" if they originally intended everyone born a citizen to be a natural born citizen? What is that person missing? They are missing birth in the country. So this clearly shows that birth in the country is a requirement to be a natural born citizen.
@GregoryConterio @AlCum No where in the code do the words "natural born" appear. You are trying to make natural born citizen mean born a citizen. It doesn't. This is easily proven.
The first draft of the eligibility requirement read as follows:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
John Jay then wrote this to George Washington:
""Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "
The final eligibility wording is of course;
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The idea that a child of two foreigners can be the President but not the child of two citizens is absurd in the extreme and proves you don't know shit about the subject.
@HistorianDude @smrstrauss1 @AlCum Your ignorance is astounding. In 1789 no child born to a foreign father was even a US citizen much less a natural born one. What's it like living in fairy land?
@HistorianDude @smrstrauss1 @AlCum Then why did the court in Wong only call him a citizen even thought the lower court had called him a natural born citizen? In the Minor case the court had to decide if Minor was even a citizen first so if the wording in Wong is ratio decidendi then so is the wording in Minor.
@HistorianDude @smrstrauss1 @AlCum Were exactly in the 14th are the words "natural born"? Were exactly in the immigration laws does it say 'natural born"? Born a citizen does not necessarily mean one is a nbC.
@AlCum @smrstrauss1 You're full of shit again. The Wong case says that anyone who falls under the 14th is a CITIZEN. You and your ilk just want to confuse born a citizen with natural born citizen. Anyone who gains citizenship by law is naturalized at birth and is not a nbC.
@GregoryConterio @AlCum Please cite ANY law which states "An nbC is ..." You're confusing born a citizen with natural born citizen.
@smrstrauss1 @AlCum You're full of shit. Tisdale was dismissed due to the failure by the plaintiff to state a claim. Everything you quote is dicta and completely meaningless.
@AlCum You;re the one who can't read. The quote says that the children of non citizens might be CITIZENS!
@AlCum The definition of nbC is not up to the whim of the Congress. You're just flat out wrong about that.
@AlCum @smrstrauss1 I disagree.
@AlCum @chillydogg1 Wrong. The definition of nbC is set in stone. It is whatever it was at the time it was written. The Constitution can only be modified by amendment. C'mon dude that's basic civics.
@smrstrauss1 @AlCum Your first quote is dicta and holds no more force than the dicta from the Minor case which states an nbC is someone born in a country to citizen parents.
All of your other cases are state cases and meaningless.
Contrary to what you think most Electors are required under State law to vote however the popular vote goes. So that is also meaningless.
I guess you're talking about the Kreep case being turned down by the SC. You failed once again to provide cites so I'll go with that. in that case the lower court threw the case out on standing so there was NO DECISION. So the SC did NOT let the lower courts decision stand because there was none.
Your arguments are pathetic in the extreme. All you do is obfuscate or make shit up that isn't there.
@smrstrauss1 @AlCum Since you failed to cite your evidence you've proven nothing. As for the Electors for all you know they just didn't know enough to make a decision. Did you talk to every single one of them to ask what they had in mind? No? I didn't think so. That's some weak sauce. And you still haven't dealt with the case of child born overseas to citizen parents which means the definition is still ambiguous.
@smrstrauss1 @AlCum So a child born overseas to two citizen parents who's families landed on Plymouth Rock might not be eligible to be President but the child of two foreigners who fly here for the birth and then return home can be? That doesn't seem fair. Seems a bit schizophrenic. Also there is definitely disagreement as to whether the latter are natural born citizens. You're quotes are from sources that are no more authoritative than your or my own opinion. The fact that you say there are doubts about anyone just proves that the phrase is ambiguous. So until the SC hears a case and decides no one can say what it means. It's all opinion at this point.
@AlCum So the children of citizens born overseas can't be President but the children of foreigners born here can be?
@Monorprise The 16th amendment allows direct taxes. That's why it has to be repealed.
2 years, 5 months ago on What next? Nullify!