DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: RacerJim
BTW: It doesn't matter where Barack Obama, aka Barry Obama, aka Barry Soetoro was born. The plain and simple fact that his father never was a U.S. Citizen prevents him from being a "natural born citizen" according to four legacy SCOTUS cases and, therefore, from meeting the U.S. Constitution's criteria that only a "natural born citizen" may serve at POTUS. Not to say I expect anything to come of that, just to say that Obama has perpetrated the most outlandish and potentially destructive fraud on the American people in history.
You're a liar. There has never been a SCOTUS ruling on what constitutes a natural born citizen.
Some would argue that in fact they have ruled on this issue in Ngyuyen v. INS. That ruling opened up an entirely different can of worms that will now be probably heard in the Flores-Villar matter, regarding gender discrimination and citizenship...
Never is such an absolute term, kind of like calling somebody a liar. No?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2071.ZS.html
Funny how a case that suipposedly has some bearing on what constitutes a natural born citizen never once includes the word "natural." There is nothing in the ruling that relates to what makes one a natural born citizen as it relates to eligibility for the Office of President.
So yes, Racerjim still lied, he claimed 4 cases and he further claimed that teh rulings were about foreign fathers. You, once again, made the stupid decision to post an erroneous claim when you know I read all such claims.
Actually the case I cited does apply to whether somebody is a natural born citizen, as the Ngyuyen was born on foreign soil to a non-citizen mother and a citizen father. While technically true that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that exact wording, there can be no doubt as to the meaning of natural born citizen being somebody that is a citizen as a result of conditions surrounding their birth (born here, parent (s) are citizens). For you to suggest that they have NEVER ruled on the subject would be by using your application of standards a LIE.
Oh and as Tim pointed out in his post just a couple back...
quote:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
Further, just some simple research might lead to the knowledge that the SCOTUS has ruled many times on citizenship and how it is aquired, and that the only reason the specific words "natural born citizen haven't been" ruled on is because of what the court itself states in US v Wong Kim Ark "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Finally, I am defintely not taking racerjim's position, I was merely commenting on your use of NEVER, since you like to make sure everybody (or at least I) am perfectly clear and concise with the exact words we choose or be branded as liars. I figured you would want to lead by example. Guess I was wrong.
So you even quote the SCOTUS ruling where they say they aren't ruling on what is a natural born citizen but still claim they have rules on the issue. Try and let this idea penetrate, if the SCOTUS had ever ruled on what constitutes a natural born citizen you could cite the case and the curious could go and read the ruling for themselves and find the definition. The SCOTUS has never made such a ruling. You know this fact and cannot dispute it. Yet you still want to quibble with it.
In this particular case RacerJim claimed that there were 4 cases ruled on by the SCOTUS that made having an alien father made you ineligible for the Presidency. There are not 4 such rulings. Therefore Racerjim lied. You don't like that liars are called liars is amusing but irrelevant. That you think you can somehow generate these 4 cases from a single case that has zero bearing on the matter is simply foolish.
|
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread