Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ok, another round of the minor v happersett game with claud.
minor v happersett does not give an exclusive definition of NBC and states as much.
"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
-minor v happersett
the "minor v happersett as exclusive definition" argument has been tried in court, and specifically rejected:
"[Supreme Court] precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."
- allen v obama
here we go - one more time. Wong was about a naturalized citizen, as opposed to a Natural Born citizen.
Quote:
Wong Kim Ark did not change the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it created another class of born "citizens," those born in the United States to one or two alien parents. Congress had never considered these children to be born “citizens” of the United States. Rather, Congress had always required that these children naturalize, either derivatively when their parents became citizens if done before the child’s age of majority or on their own if done thereafter. These born “citizens” do not meet the definition of a "natural born" Citizen but because of the Wong Kim Ark decision are nevertheless granted a birthright citizenship through naturalization at birth. By naturalizing Wong at birth, the Wong Kim Ark decision, like Congressional Acts which also naturalize children at birth, also created the anomaly that these children are born with allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and to the nations of their alien parents (through jus sanguinis citizenship), but are not despite our citizenship history required to give an oath of sole allegiance to the United States.
Hence, we now have three birthright citizenships, (1) one under Article II which gives the national status of "natural born Citizen" of the United States, (2) another under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which gives the national status of born "citizen" of the United States to person born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and (3) another under Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401et seq.) which also give the status of born “citizen” of the United States to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. But because the Founders and Framers distinguished in Article II’s grandfather clause between “natural born” Citizens of the United States and “Citizens” of the United States (prior to the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen” of the United States and be eligible to be President but for those born after its adoption, one had to be a “natural born” Citizen”), only a person who has Article II "natural born" Citizen status is eligible to be President. This means that only a person who was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is eligible to be President.
here we go - one more time. Wong was about a naturalized citizen, as opposed to a Natural Born citizen.
Wrong. This is a birther lie, through and through
Wong was a Citizenship case; whether or not that he was a US Citizen, since he was born on US Soil to Chinese Nationals.
The Chinese Exclusion act at the time DISALLOWED any one of Chinese heritage to become citizens, so your "naturalized" citizen claims is complete bull puckey. NO Chinese person could ever become a citizen because of the law.
And you birthers continually ignore that even the DISSENTING opinion raised, that any child born to alien parents on US soil, could become President, but those born to US Citizens outside the US, were not eligible (the law at the time didn't allow for those born to US Citizens, say in China, to be considered Natural Born Citizens)
Your twisting of the facts doesn't negate what was actually argued in the case.
Wong Kim Ark defined natural born citizenship and its origins in English Common Law
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
The case goes on to cite other cases where born on US Soil or place of birth determined citizenship.
Wong was a Citizenship case; whether or not that he was a US Citizen, since he was born on US Soil to Chinese Nationals.
The Chinese Exclusion act at the time DISALLOWED any one of Chinese heritage to become citizens, so your "naturalized" citizen claims is complete bull puckey. NO Chinese person could ever become a citizen because of the law.
And you birthers continually ignore that even the DISSENTING opinion raised, that any child born to alien parents on US soil, could become President, but those born to US Citizens outside the US, were not eligible (the law at the time didn't allow for those born to US Citizens, say in China, to be considered Natural Born Citizens)
Your twisting of the facts doesn't negate what was actually argued in the case.
Wong Kim Ark defined natural born citizenship and its origins in English Common Law
The case goes on to cite other cases where born on US Soil or place of birth determined citizenship.
Interesting case I have never heard of. Was Wong Kim Ark 'specifically' labeled by the Supreme Court a Citizen or specically labeled by the Supreme Court a natural born Citizen?
Wong Kim Ark is one of the leading cases in American jurisprudence on the topic of citizenship. It's been cited hundreds, if not thousands of times by others courts throughout the country, and it still represents the law of this country. You should become familiar with it if you want to go down that "two citizen parents" hole, because this one case completely ruins that argument.
Quote:
Was Wong Kim Ark 'specifically' labeled by the Supreme Court a Citizen or specically [sic] labeled by the Supreme Court a natural born Citizen?
I almost feel like this is a disingenuous question, that you already know the answer to this, that this question is asked only to make a silly point, and hence you have already heard of Wong Kim Ark. I'll play along.
If you hit CTRL+F and looked for "Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen," you won't find that direct phrase. Wong Kim Ark is referred to as "a Citizen" at the end of the case. However, the reasoning of the case is clear, particularly the language that's already been quoted several times. And state courts facing Obama eligibility challenges throughout the country have found it easy, as would any 1L taking constitutional law, to read Wong Kim Ark to mean that anybody born in the US, with certain exceptions irrelevant to Obama himself, is a natural born citizen.
It fits in with our historic experience. There is a lengthy list of one former president, vice presidents, major party nominees and candidates who had at least one non-citizen parent, with none of them having their candidacies seriously challenged on that basis.
Interesting case I have never heard of. Was Wong Kim Ark 'specifically' labeled by the Supreme Court a Citizen or specically labeled by the Supreme Court a natural born Citizen?
It doesn't matter. Or in the exact words of the later Ankeny court, "the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial." (emphasis added).
Us v. Wong Kim Ark is the only Supreme Court Decision that has ever been cited by any subsequent court as reigning precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.
here we go - one more time. Wong was about a naturalized citizen, as opposed to a Natural Born citizen.
did you miss the part of purpura/moran v obama where mario apuzzo lost with this argument?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
