Author Topic: Nikki Haley Is Not A Natural Born Citizen of USA To Constitutional Standards – Not Eligible To Be Pr  (Read 2662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Neither the Constitution nor the long quote that you provided define what "natural born citizen" actually means, so I'm not sure how that backs up your argument.

My point is pretty basic.  There are people who were citizens at birth, and then there are people who are naturalized as citizens.  What evidence can you point me to showing that, in the period around 1789, a child could be considered a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen?  Anything from back then that discusses those two concepts and draws a distinction between them.

Because from everything I've read, that distinction didn't exist.  Therefore, when the 14th Amendment was passed making you a citizen at birth if you were born here (and subject to the jurisdiction of), then you're a natural born citizen.  Might be dumb, but its the law nonetheless.

What I can point you to is the FACT that the author of that long quote (St. George Tucker) is the very same St. George Tucker who produced BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: (five volumes) and I can find not one instance of his interpretation being disputed by any member of the founding generation. I'll just go with that.

And BTW: As you well know, the people who wrote the 14th never intended that it apply to anyone with any possible foreign allegiance. It was for former slaves alone.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2023, 11:18:35 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
@Bigun

What I can point you to is the FACT that the author of that long quote (St. George Tucker) is the very same St. George Tucker who produced BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: (five volumes) and I can find not one instance of his interpretation being disputed by any member of the founding generation. I'll just go with that.

But there was no interpretation of "natural born citizen" in that quote.  All he did was say that it was important, but he never defined it.  Seriously -- read it again and look for that definition.  It just isn't there.

Quote
And BTW: As you well know, the people who wrote the 14th never intended that it apply to anyone with any possible foreign allegiance. It was for former slaves alone.[/size]

Wouldn't someone who was a former slave have potential foreign allegiance against the U.S.?   After all, they might be rather pissed about the whole slavery thing. In any case, the Amendment says what it says.  If they wanted to limit it to just slaves, they could have written it that way,  But they didn't.  So it applied to slaves, the children of Chinese coolies working on railroads (also intended in the legislative and ratification history), etc..  And every case from that time interpreted it as applying not just to slaves, but to everyone.

The argument you're making about the "intent" trumping the actual language cuts both ways.  Because by that logic, the 14th Amendment was intended to protect former slaves against discrimination, and intended nothing about pro-black discrimination against whites.   Same with the Civil Rights statutes, etc..  Black activists/leftists actually use the exact argument you're making here about the "intent" of the legislation -- that while it was intended to protect blacks against discrimination, it never was intended to bar affirmative action.   The only reason affirmative action gets struck down is because of the plain language - not because of the perceived "intent" of those who wrote it.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
@Bigun

But there was no interpretation of "natural born citizen" in that quote.  All he did was say that it was important, but he never defined it.  Seriously -- read it again and look for that definition.  It just isn't there.

Wouldn't someone who was a former slave have potential foreign allegiance against the U.S.?   After all, they might be rather pissed about the whole slavery thing. In any case, the Amendment says what it says.  If they wanted to limit it to just slaves, they could have written it that way,  But they didn't.  So it applied to slaves, the children of Chinese coolies working on railroads (also intended in the legislative and ratification history), etc..  And every case from that time interpreted it as applying not just to slaves, but to everyone.

The argument you're making about the "intent" trumping the actual language cuts both ways.  Because by that logic, the 14th Amendment was intended to protect former slaves against discrimination, and intended nothing about pro-black discrimination against whites.   Same with the Civil Rights statutes, etc..  Black activists/leftists actually use the exact argument you're making here about the "intent" of the legislation -- that while it was intended to protect blacks against discrimination, it never was intended to bar affirmative action.   The only reason affirmative action gets struck down is because of the plain language - not because of the perceived "intent" of those who wrote it.

If one reads the legislative history to the 14th Amendment, one realizes that it was not intended to simply be limited to former slaves, that the application to foreign persons was debated, and it was decided to only limit its application in the case of people who had a special relationship with a foreign sovereign - i.e., diplomats; otherwise, the drafters were well aware that it would apply to foreigners, and they were only concerned about that in the case of foreign diplomats and foreign envoys.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan

@Bigun

But there was no interpretation of "natural born citizen" in that quote.  All he did was say that it was important, but he never defined it.  Seriously -- read it again and look for that definition.  It just isn't there.[\quote]

Apparently, YOU have a reading comprehension problem. @Maj. Bill Martin

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,...
can you not see that there is a distinction between mere citizenship and the natural born variety?

According to Madison's notes on the convention there were three copies of Vattel's The Law of Nations in the room at Philidelphia, one in the original French and two English translations. That's enough for me.

 Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Do yourself a favor and READ THIS!




« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 04:30:49 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
If one reads the legislative history to the 14th Amendment, one realizes that it was not intended to simply be limited to former slaves, that the application to foreign persons was debated, and it was decided to only limit its application in the case of people who had a special relationship with a foreign sovereign - i.e., diplomats; otherwise, the drafters were well aware that it would apply to foreigners, and they were only concerned about that in the case of foreign diplomats and foreign envoys.

Nope!

Senator Jacob Howard, who, in 1866 fully described the intent, focus, and limits of the first clause while addressing and introducing it to the 39th Congress for ratification:


“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

 Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 04:49:01 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
The SCOTUS 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 Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, The SCOTUS 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 Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

(A)ll 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.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 04:55:41 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Nope!

Senator Jacob Howard, who, in 1866 fully described the intent, focus, and limits of the first clause while addressing and introducing it to the 39th Congress for ratification:


“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

 Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890



Thank you for proving my point.  As I said, the legislative history to the 14th Amendment made it clear that Congress contemplated the 14th Amendment applying to everyone other than "the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, ...."  And that includes other foreigners.

It was most definitely not limited to, and was not intended to be limited to, former slaves.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"

Apparently, YOU have a reading comprehension problem. @Maj. Bill Martin

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,...
can you not see that there is a distinction between mere citizenship and the natural born variety?

Absolutely.  The difference is whether or not you are a citizen at birth, or become a citizen through the process of naturalization.  If you have to be naturalized, then you are not a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be President.

Quote
According to Madison's notes on the convention there were three copies of Vattel's The Law of Nations in the room at Philidelphia, one in the original French and two English translations. That's enough for me.

Enough for what?  To assume that everything de Vattel wrote was automatically incorporated into the U.S. Constitution??  They also had copies of Blackstone floating around, and probably some other legal treatises as well.  When you're writing a brand new Constitution, you of course want to look at as many ideas as you can, and from there, pick and choose from each the ideas that appeal to you.  There were tons of different ideas in each of those treatises, many of which contradicted each other.  So why assume that they meant "natural born citizen" in the de Vattel sense rather than in the sense of English common law -- in which every single one of them had been raised?

You want to know why they likely had de Vattel?  Because the federal Swiss canton system was the closest exemplar out there to the federal system they were looking to develop in the U.S., and de Vattel wrote extensively on federalism.  Hell, during this period, there were exactly 13 cantons in the Swiss confederation.  Even there, though, the Framers didn't adopt fully the Swiss canton system, and chose to create a stronger central government than the Swiss had.  But they at least would have looked at what de Vattel wrote about it to see his arguments and ideas, even if they didn't adopt them.

Quote
Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Do yourself a favor and READ THIS!

[/size]

No, I don't have a reading comprehension problem.  You provided an extensive quote from St. George Tucker, which is exactly the quote to which I was referring.  He makes no mention of de Vattel's Law of Nations in that quote, and certainly not of de Vattel's version of "natural born citizen".  None.  Which kind of makes sense given that he's a Blackstone guy, and therefore would have defaulted to English Common law rather than any continental law.  Tucker's quote -- given that it doesn't even mention de Vattel --- cannot possibly be used to claim he's endorsing de Vattel's meaning of "natural born" over the meaning it had in English Common Law.

The default rule in American legal jurisprudence right from the founding of the country was English common law, and that law applied unless superseded by legislative enactment. English common law cases from pre-Independence occasionally still are cited in American courts.  So the idea that we should ditch the common law meaning of "natural born" just because there were also copies of a Swiss legal treatise also floating around makes no sense.  Swiss law is not the default rule in the U.S., and never has been.

And in any case -- there was no distinctions drawn even in de Vattel between being a citizen at birth, and a "natural born" citizens.  The concepts were identical back then, and remain so today.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 05:26:29 pm by Maj. Bill Martin »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Absolutely.  The difference is whether or not you are a citizen at birth, or become a citizen through the process of naturalization.  If you have to be naturalized, then you are not a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be President.

No, I don't have a reading comprehension problem.  You provided an extensive quote from St. George Tucker, which is exactly the quote to which I was referring.  He makes no mention of de Vattel's Law of Nations in that quote, and certainly not of de Vattel's version of "natural born citizen".  None.  Which kind of makes sense given that he's a Blackstone guy, and therefore would have defaulted to English Common law rather than any continental law.  Tucker's quote -- given that it doesn't even mention de Vattel --- cannot possibly be used to claim he's endorsing de Vattel's meaning of "natural born" over the meaning it had in English Common Law.

The default rule in American legal jurisprudence right from the founding of the country was English common law, and that law applied unless superseded by legislative enactment. English common law cases from pre-Independence occasionally still are cited in American courts.  So the idea that we should ditch the common law meaning of "natural born" just because there were also copies of a Swiss legal treatise also floating around makes no sense.  Swiss law is not the default rule in the U.S., and never has been.

And in any case -- there was no distinctions drawn even in de Vattel between being a citizen at birth, and a "natural born" citizens.  The concepts were identical back then, and remain so today.

False! All of it! WRT Natural born citizenship.

You can believe that tripe if you wish but it's not so.  The founders well knew that there was to be no throne in the USA much less lines of accension.

If one has need of ANY legislation ever passed that person is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen"
« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 05:25:05 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Thank you for proving my point.  As I said, the legislative history to the 14th Amendment made it clear that Congress contemplated the 14th Amendment applying to everyone other than "the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, ...."  And that includes other foreigners.

It was most definitely not limited to, and was not intended to be limited to, former slaves.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

Please continue in your self delusion!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Please continue in your self delusion!

Just reading plain, simple English language.  That's all it takes.  If you disbelieve the English in front of you, that's your problem; it certainly isn't the legislative history of the 14th Amendment.

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,354
  • Gender: Male
Feel pretty good about this topic.  I don't care if the bitch is a citizen or not.   I just want her political aspirations destroyed.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
@Bigun

False! All of it!

Really?  Okay, I said this, which you just labeled as "False!  All of it" in your post:

Quote
You provided an extensive quote from St. George Tucker, which is exactly the quote to which I was referring.  He makes no mention of de Vattel's Law of Nations in that quote, and certainly not of de Vattel's version of "natural born citizen".  None.

So if that is "False!", please point me to where in your Tucker quote he mentioned de Vattel's Law of Nations, and de Vattel's definition of "Natural born citizen".  Here, I'll even help you out by copying the Tucker quote that you provided earlier in this thread.

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the contitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

Please explain how it is "False!" for me to say that de Vattel wasn't mentioned in that paragraph.




Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Feel pretty good about this topic.  I don't care if the bitch is a citizen or not.   I just want her political aspirations destroyed.

When our progeny wind up with a radical Muslim president because no one cares about this... Wait! That's already happened hasn't it?

IF she is a citizen at all, she is a naturalized citizen and thus not a natural born citizen as the constitution requires.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 05:42:39 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
@Bigun

Really?  Okay, I said this, which you just labeled as "False!  All of it" in your post:

So if that is "False!", please point me to where in your Tucker quote he mentioned de Vattel's Law of Nations, and de Vattel's definition of "Natural born citizen".  Here, I'll even help you out by copying the Tucker quote that you provided earlier in this thread.

Please explain how it is "False!" for me to say that de Vattel wasn't mentioned in that paragraph.

He doesn't mention it because EVERYONE KNEW what it was! Just like everyone knows what pizza is today. He didn't need to!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
He doesn't mention it because EVERYONE KNEW what it was! Just like everyone knows what pizza is today. He didn't need to!

Oh.  So now you're admitting that when I said that quote never mentioned de Vattel, that was actually 100% true.  You're just making up an excuse for why he didn't mention it.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Oh.  So now you're admitting that when I said that quote never mentioned de Vattel, that was actually 100% true.  You're just making up an excuse for why he didn't mention it.

I admit to forgetting to add the amendment I added later.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,354
  • Gender: Male
When our progeny wind up with a radical Muslim president because no one cares about this... Wait! That's already happened hasn't it?

IF she is a citizen at all, she is a naturalized citizen and thus not a natural born citizen as the constitution requires.

You lost the point of my intent of that her prior pioneer woke record should preclude any consideration for anything within the GOP.

I'd prefer to see her ass sent back to India, and never come back.  So bullocks with the NBC issue for her as far as I am concerned.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
He doesn't mention it because EVERYONE KNEW what it was!

Saying that "everyone knew" something doesn't make it so.

And as I've said repeatedly, regardless of which definition of "natural born citizen" you believe should have applied in 1789, it remains 100% true that neither de Vattel nor English law (under which every single colony was governed, and in which every single American lawyer was trained) drew a distinction between being a "citizen at birth" and a "natural born citizen".  The only distinction that they recognized was between someone who was a citizen at birth, a someone who was naturalized as a citizen at some point after they were born...wherever that happened to be.

Because of that, the plain language of the 14th Amendment makes the whole NBC debate a moot point today.

By the way, if you think the 14th Amendment really does apply only to former slaves, then every single one of us who is descended from immigrants who relied on the 14h Amendment and therefore were never naturalized are not citizens either because our ancestors never became citizens.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Saying that "everyone knew" something doesn't make it so.

And as I've said repeatedly, regardless of which definition of "natural born citizen" you believe should have applied in 1789, it remains 100% true that neither de Vattel nor English law (under which every single colony was governed, and in which every single American lawyer was trained) drew a distinction between being a "citizen at birth" and a "natural born citizen".  The only distinction that they recognized was between someone who was a citizen at birth, a someone who was naturalized as a citizen at some point after they were born...wherever that happened to be.

Because of that, the plain language of the 14th Amendment makes the whole NBC debate a moot point today.

By the way, if you think the 14th Amendment really does apply only to former slaves, then every single one of us who is descended from immigrants who relied on the 14h Amendment and therefore were never naturalized are not citizens either because our ancestors never became citizens.

English common law says that citizenship follows the citizenship of fathers.  As in the case of Barrack Husein Obama who was, at birth, a citizen of Kenya due to his (alleged) father's Kenya citizenship.

I'm tired of arguing. This country is FUBAR and will never be anything more than just another banana republic again.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2023, 06:57:16 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,355
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
The "natural born citizenship" issue has become a telling political "centrifuge".

It clearly separates those who really are "of the right", from the RINOs.
(In this case, "right in name only")...

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
The "natural born citizenship" issue has become a telling political "centrifuge".

It clearly separates those who really are "of the right", from the RINOs.
(In this case, "right in name only")...

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them.  It's my job."

It may very well be that the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision was poorly written, and a bad idea.  But that doesn't make it any less the law of the land, and the text is absolutely clear.  It's not the job of the Supreme Court to "fix" poorly written laws, or to re-interpret them so as to "better serve" the interests of the country.


Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them.  It's my job."

It may very well be that the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision was poorly written, and a bad idea.  But that doesn't make it any less the law of the land, and the text is absolutely clear.  It's not the job of the Supreme Court to "fix" poorly written laws, or to re-interpret them so as to "better serve" the interests of the country.



:thumbsup:

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them.  It's my job."

It may very well be that the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision was poorly written, and a bad idea.  But that doesn't make it any less the law of the land, and the text is absolutely clear.  It's not the job of the Supreme Court to "fix" poorly written laws, or to re-interpret them so as to "better serve" the interests of the country.

SCOTUS 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 Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"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, "

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"(A)ll 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."

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien