AtomicCEO Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Cattle mutilations are up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 And in other news, after the Alabama maersk was attacked by pirates a second time and narrowly escaped it sailed right off the end of the Earth. Some luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 (edited) yes, there is a difference a natural born citizen is a person who was a citizen from birth as opposed to a naturalized citizen (who is someone who was not a citizen when they were born but became one at some point in their life) there is no nonsensical middle category like you are suggesting Bingo. ETA: Basically, the founders said that being a member of a 100 person chamber (100 now, of course, but in any event not the single office holder) that forms half a branch was different to being the entirety of one of the three branches. Edited November 22, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I do appreciate some reasoned responses. First of all, no one knows precisely what a "natural born" citizen is because it is only a requirement for President and has not been specifically defined by the Supreme Court for that purpose. Anyone claiming to know is only offering opinion. And I did not create a "nonsensical middle category," the Supreme Court did. And others noticed and many legal scholars wrote about it. Many of them agree with the middle category. In US v. Wong Kim Ark (Wong Kim Ark was the son of two Chinese citizens born in the U.S., who the Court determined to be a citizen.) the Court wrote: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ " It sure seems that the Court considered the circumstances of birth of the child of the alien and the child of the citizen differently. The Court gives them the same citizenship rights, but only names one category as "natural born." The final holding of the case says: "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…whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." As the Court used the "natural born language" earlier in the opinion, it is significant that they declined to declare Wong Kim Ark anything more than a simple citizen. Had they meant to do so, they would have used the language.They were obviously aware. I am too tired to go into what the founders intended in depth right now. But I can share that John Jay (the first Supreme Court Chief Justice) wrote the following 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." That was in response to Alexander Hamilton suggesting this as the qualification for President in one of the first drafts of the Constitution: "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." Eventually, the Framers rejected Hamilton's simpler qualification. This issue is not as cut and dry as some of you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I now have a mashup of "Obsession", "Paranoid" and "Crazy Train" going through my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 First of all, no one knows precisely what a "natural born" citizen is because it is only a requirement for President and has not been specifically defined by the Supreme Court for that purpose. Anyone claiming to know is only offering opinion. Nobody can possibly know what 2+2 equals because the Supreme Court has never ruled on it. Mathemeticians around the world are merely speculating as to the answer, and every time a real citizen tries to challenge it, the case is thrown out of court due to some massive lieberal conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 In US v. Wong Kim Ark (Wong Kim Ark was the son of two Chinese citizens born in the U.S., who the Court determined to be a citizen.) the Court wrote: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ " It sure seems that the Court considered the circumstances of birth of the child of the alien and the child of the citizen differently. The Court gives them the same citizenship rights, but only names one category as "natural born." The final holding of the case says: "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…whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." It's amazing what happens when you use elipses instead of the actual words: The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 It's amazing what happens when you use elipses instead of the actual words: Lady Hawke just got pwned . . . game set and match to weigie . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 You DO realize that if there was even a SHRED of credibility behind this farce that the Republicans would be sending every high priced lawyer to file lawsuits challenging the eligibilty . . . right? The very lack of activity on this highly debated subject DURING THE ELECTION proves how silly and simplistic people can be that actually believe this drivel. Please go back to searching for bigfoot, Area 51 and the Loch Ness monster. Those have more credibility . . . Unless the obamessiah is really a tool of the bilderberg group, masons and the illuminati who have all politicians in their back pockets... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 And in other news, after the Alabama maersk was attacked by pirates a second time and narrowly escaped it sailed right off the end of the Earth. Some luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Lady.hawke @ 11/23/09 3:31am) In US v. Wong Kim Ark (Wong Kim Ark was the son of two Chinese citizens born in the U.S., who the Court determined to be a citizen.) the Court wrote: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ " It sure seems that the Court considered the circumstances of birth of the child of the alien and the child of the citizen differently. The Court gives them the same citizenship rights, but only names one category as "natural born." The final holding of the case says: "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…whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." Note in the bolded text, it mentions natural-born child of a citizen. That's citizen in the singular context. Not plural. One parent being a citizen. Edited November 23, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I can't wait for judge judy to get on the supreme court and send obama and wiegie's little mongrel children back where they belong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I can't wait for judge judy to get on the supreme court and send obama and wiegie's little mongrel children back where they belong We can only hope she would sentence them to life atop the Eiffel tower... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) It's amazing what happens when you use elipses instead of the actual words: I do not have the time to educate you on the difference between "subject" and "citizen." The bottom line is that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark deemed him to be a citizen and declined to declare him as natural born. The idea that the Founders considered anyone born on this soil eligible to be President is ridiculous. I noticed that no one commented on the John Jay quote. The founders could not have cared less about political correctness because they were concerned with national security Moreover, here is some of George Washington's farewell address: ------ "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism… It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another… If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield… As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.. ___ Edited November 24, 2009 by Lady.hawke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 What did that poor dead horse do to deserve such a beating? In other news, it looks like there's going to be more troops going into Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) I do not have the time to educate you on the difference between "subject" and "citizen." The bottom line is that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark deemed him to be a citizen and declined to declare him as natural born.uh, the Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen from birth and they also said that he was a natural born subject of the US, so I therefore urge you to explain how someone who is born a US citizen and is also a natural born US subject is somehow not a natural born US citizen. (Given that this is the whole thrust of your argument, it really shouldn't take that much time to expain it to me.) The idea that the Founders considered anyone born on this soil eligible to be President is ridiculous. I noticed that no one commented on the John Jay quote. The founders could not have cared less about political correctness because they were concerned with national security uh we didn't focus on that because in the Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court specifically stated that "His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate" What did that poor dead horse do to deserve such a beating? What you call "beating", I call "tenderizing" :yum: Edited November 24, 2009 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) So Lady Hawke is trying to use George Washinton quotes to justify why a black man isn't American. Nice! How many slaves did Washington own by the way? Edited November 24, 2009 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I do not have the time to educate you on the difference between "subject" and "citizen." The bottom line is that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark deemed him to be a citizen and declined to declare him as natural born. The idea that the Founders considered anyone born on this soil eligible to be President is ridiculous. I noticed that no one commented on the John Jay quote. The founders could not have cared less about political correctness because they were concerned with national security Moreover, here is some of George Washington's farewell address: ------ "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism… It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another… If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield… As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.. ___ Does anyone know what this has to do with the discussion at hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 So Lady Hawke is trying to use George Washinton quotes to justify why a black man isn't American. Nice! How many slaves did Washington own by the way? give george some credit he did free his slaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Well it looks like three months after the initial request and several dead bodies later McChrystal is finally going to get at least most of what he asked for. I wonder if Obama is finding it harder to be a decider than he thought it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Does anyone know what this has to do with the discussion at hand? As best as I can tell, I think Lady.Hawke is trying to tell me that, under the direction of "president" Obama, my kids are going to commit patricide and then overthrow the US government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 give george some credit he did free his slaves. If only we could get back to the days where only the white male landowners made all the decisions....the way the Founding Fathers intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Does anyone know what this has to do with the discussion at hand? I'm just amazed that she "didn't have time" to explain her post and then posted 500 words about something unrelated. Sounds like poor time management to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I'm just amazed that she "didn't have time" to explain her post and then posted 500 words about something unrelated. Sounds like poor time management to me. Lady hawke= Les Miles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 As best as I can tell, I think Lady.Hawke is trying to tell me that, under the direction of "president" Obama, my kids are going to commit patricide and then overthrow the US government. I say we blame all our problems on the Jews brown/black/yellow people. There's some good history in rallying the people to such a cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.