The court declared Wong Kim Ark was a 14th Amendment citizen. They did not declare Wong Kim Ark was a natural born Citizen.
Upvote
0
March 25, 2010 Kenyan official: Obama born here!
- Thread starter HerbieHeadley
- Start date
Go back to my quoted section of the ruling -- they found that she was a natural born citizen based on English common law, and by extension American law; both at the time of the Declaration of Independence and later.
Maren(gets tired of repeating herself)
Upvote
0
What are you talking about?
Who is she?
We are not under English common law!
Herb, you've Lost again in a spectacular fashion.
Upvote
0
What are you talking about?
Who is she?
We are not under English common law!
Excuse me, he. Forgive me for adding an "s" to the pronoun.
And while we are not under English Common Law, it was the basis for the legal system when the United States was created. And, per the binding Supreme Court precedent, it was the origin of the "natural born citizen" class in the Constitution (regardless of how much you would prefer to use other sources to determine its meaning).
Maren(who is still tired of repeating herself)
Upvote
0
Do you have a link to my scorecard?
You really make no input of substance, do you?
there's a mercy rule in effect and you're so far behind that no one is keeping score anymore.
I've pointed out that the "declaration" is total nonsense.
I'm just trying to help our just cause. I don't want you to look foolish and harm the effort to topple the dear leader.
Upvote
0
OK, who was he?
And what binding supreme court precedent was the origin of the "natural born Citizen" class in the Constitution?
Upvote
0
OK, who was he?
And what binding supreme court precedent was the origin of the "natural born Citizen" class in the Constitution?
He was Wong Kim Ark -- remember, the person you were talking about in the post I originally quoted.
And no Supreme Court ruling, much less the fact that it is the binding precedent, was the origin of the natural citizen class in the Constitution. Instead (as I explained in this post) the Supreme Court found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution was based on the English Common Law idea of natural born citizen -- which is that any person born in the country regardless of the parent's citizenship (unless the child of a foreign diplomat or other officially recognized representative of a foreign government). And currently that decision is the binding precedent and that this is even reinforced by a decision you cited Perkins v. Elg (as I showed in this post).
Maren(who hopes you now understand)
Upvote
0
You seem to have a habit of mixing different rulings and combine them to mean what you say they mean.
The Wong decision had what is a comparison between two types of American children. One child is a child born in America and the other is a natural born American child. Two completely different children are being compared to one another.
An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed. Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. Additionally, he added if a negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.
However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.
Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: The provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Howard follows up by stating, the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendments citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, [t]he phrase, subject to its jurisdiction was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Gray knew he could not come out and repeat what he had said in Elk because then Wong Kim Ark could not had been found to had been born a citizen of the United States because his parents were not completely subject to their [United States] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Instead, they were merely subjects of China residing in California unable to become U.S. citizens by treaty.
Elk and Wong are in conflict with each other over the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and has been for a long time. Elk is the correct interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof according to the framers.
Wong Kim Ark had to be naturalized by the court because the both law and treaty said he couldnt be a citizen.
The question of Barrack Hussein Obama, II's actual location of birth is of great concern. Until he releases his vault copy, of the long form birth certificate and supporting evidence such as the hospital records, this issue will haunt him for his entire term in office.
Google my copy/pastey
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
what is a "14th amendment citizen" and how is that different from a "citizen"?
are you making up stuff again?
(that wasn't a trick question)
Upvote
0
You seem to have a habit of mixing different rulings and combine them to mean what you say they mean.
The Wong decision had what is a comparison between two types of American children. One child is a child born in America and the other is a natural born American child. Two completely different children are being compared to one another.
An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.
Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Gray knew he could not come out and repeat what he had said in Elk because then Wong Kim Ark could not had been found to had been born a citizen of the United States because his parents were not “completely subject to their [United States] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Instead, they were merely subjects of China residing in California unable to become U.S. citizens by treaty.
Elk and Wong are in conflict with each other over the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and has been for a long time. Elk is the correct interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” according to the framers.
Wong Kim Ark had to be naturalized by the court because the both law and treaty said he couldn’t be a citizen.
The question of Barrack Hussein Obama, II's actual location of birth is of great concern. Until he releases his vault copy, of the long form birth certificate and supporting evidence such as the hospital records, this issue will haunt him for his entire term in office.
[/font][/size]
Google my copy/pastey
And you accuse me of mish-mashing? Seriously, you have facts so mangled here to be almost beyond recognition. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim Ark was a person born of Chinese parents in the United States who, after he was an adult, wished to take a trip to the land of his ancestry.
Now, based on the claims you make above, he was denied reentry into the US on the basis that he was never an American citizen. He sued and the Supreme Court determined he was, in fact, a Natural Born Citizen at least partially based on the reasoning I quoted earlier. The court did not "naturalize" him, nor did they declare him a "Naturalized Citizen".
Now Elk v. Wilkins (and please do not confuse this ruling with Perkins v. Elg) predated United States v. Wong Kim Ark; Elk was ruled in 1884, Wong Kim Ark was in 1898.
Now, Elk is the case of a Native American who was born on an Indian Reservation. In that case, even though an Indian Reservation is technically US soil, US law has typically held Indian Nations as Independent Nations and their land as sovereign to that nation. This is much the same as an Embassy (or military base) of a foreign country being considered as land of that country. This is the reason John McCain was typically considered as being born on US soil even though he was born in Panama. As such Elk did not count as having been born on US soil in much the same way as a child born in a foreign embassy would not be counted as being born in the US.
And now we come to Perkins v. Elg, the most recent of the court rulings, made in 1939. This ruling is the one where a Swedish couple who had become naturalized had a child born on US soil and then took the child back to Sweden and made her a Swedish citizen. In this case, the court ruled that, so far as being a natural born citizen, United States v Wong Kim Ark was still the precedent, that a child born in the US is a natural born citizen. This precedent is clear -- a child born in the US is a natural born citizen. Also (and this also applies to your Obama claims) a child cannot have his citizenship taken away by the parents.
Now, you are right that if Pres. Obama had been born in Kenya it might make a difference. However, there is zero actual evidence of Obama having been born outside the US. What we do have is a birth certificate that has been confirmed by Hawaiian officials as being authentic and that is legal evidence for Obama's being born in Honolulu. In addition, Obama has a passport. And the long form is a red herring as Hawaii does not offer long form birth certificates and hasn't since 2001. While Obama likely had one at one time, since they did have them at the time he was born, he has no legal reason to need to show it (assuming that it didn't become worn out, illegible, or lost).
Maren(who can't believe she had to explain all this again)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TheNewWorldMan
phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range
Herbie, you got us.
Obama is actually one of these guys.
He and his lizard buddies want to exploit humans for food, and steal our planet's water.
Obama is actually one of these guys.
He and his lizard buddies want to exploit humans for food, and steal our planet's water.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
Upvote
0
This is ridiculous. Obama is clearly a V - a reptilian come in the guise of human flesh so as transform the state from within into a reptilian collecto-topia.
Upvote
0
T
tanzanos
Guest
And what does this have to do with Obama? Both Congress and the Senate have not put forward any objection to Obama's legitimacy. You on the other hand make it very clear in your posts that you dislike Obama's mixed Black and white heritage. You insult the very institutions you so dearly uphold as sacred; that of the civil departments of your country. You denounce them as incompetent and corrupt by your refusal to accept the Hawaiian birth certificate. You refuse to accept the will of Congress and the Senate for their clear acceptance of Obama's right to be President. Yet you accept the word of a Kenyan official (who comes from a country rife with corrupt officials).
He is your President by the will of the people. He is recognised not only by your Congress and Senate but by the opposition parties as well.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sorry, I showed you exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled on Natural Born Citizen and your "chart" disagrees with what the Supreme Court has ruled. Of course, I don't know what else I'd expect from a Birther that calls himself Mountain Publius Goat.
I would suggest you find better sources.
Maren(not sure why the chart is supposed to be convincing)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
