I'm neither American or a lawyer so let me try and debunk some of this shit
realist wrote:
RS continues to amaze himself (and show his complete and utter inability to read and comprehend the English language and certainly a complete inability to read and comprehend case law). But the birhers think he's the bee's knees.
Comment from ORYR [italics are poster(s) remarks he's responding to.
Quote:
@Anonymous
Nowhere has the Supreme Court ever differentiated between "native born" "natural born" or "born a citizen" or "born citizen."
Not true Foggy-OBot.
We all can see in Minor v. Happersett that they interpreted natural law to who are natural born citizens.
Not if you include the rest of the paragraph where they specifically say that they didn't make a ruling on children born of non citizen parents.When ORLY GODDAM TAITZ can look at a case and see your argument is completely flawed, that means you are clinging to a fact that a 6 year old reading level person could see through.
Quote:
As the poster was stating to your BS'ing. As he said to you,
"3) This was before US v Wong Kim Ark, so at that point many people understood native-born to mean born in the US to citizen parents. My guess is that Miller fell into that category. That would make his statement true, at the time, but not accurate to the vernacular of A2S1 and not true in today's vernacular." " [he's referring to his interpretation of Miller's dissent in Ex parte Garland]
You see OBot, in 1939 Ms. Elg was declared by SCOTUS (Perkins v. Elg) under natural law to be a natural born US citizen since she was born in the US and born to 2 US citizen parents at the time.
Actually, the ruling in the case was that that the person could not lose her natural born citizenship status despite spending her childhood in another country and gaining its citizenship by parentage (similar to children of us citizens born abroad) because Elg returned to the United states upon her majority and therefore chose to retain her US citizenship by her actions. The reasons for her NBC status were not a factor in the case and in fact it cited at least one case whereby a NATIVE BORN citizen could become president of the United States. And that case also referenced a case where it was stated someone with dual citizenship can become president, proving people with dual citizenship can become president. Indeed Ms Elg herself had dual citizenship, and you are stating that she was an NBC. What was your view of jurisdiction again?
Quote:
And for crystal clear clarity to you OBots, the Supreme Court case in 1952:
"Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)"
-snip-
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States," 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97. "
-end snip-
Sounds like the Elg decision.
Quote:
You see OBot, there was a modern divergence in usage between natural born v. native born, especially after the Wong Ark 1898 decision. In modern times, native "citizens" may not be natural born citizens, BUT natural born citizens are ALWAYS native born.
Er, so before the 14th you think the fact that they interchanged native born and natural born before the 14th does not matter anymore because of the 14th?
So how come the case the Elg, which you referred to, referenced a case decided after the 14th which specifically said a native born could be president? I quote from Elg where they quoted the case;
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;"
Quote:
To repeat the key SCOTUS clause to you from above OBot.
"He [Kawakita] was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,"
Kawakita was a 14th Amendment baby ,(thanks to WKA) and therefore, he was NOT a natural born citizen and he was still a Japanese national of Japan.
The 14th Amendment is a man-made law and so it is NOT natural law.
Uh, so how come the 14th was described by its drafters as simply being declaratory of existing law? They were clear that they were trying to codify existing common law in such a way as could not be attacked by future decisions such as Dredd Scott vs Sanford
Quote:
The ignorance displayed by you OBots have no bounds.
At least Obots actually read the cases they rely on for backup, it seems
So lawyers, how did I do on refuting some of that? I know I probably missed a few pointers but I think I got the main thrust of the bullshit.
Edit: Lots of edits to correct typos and add clarification. Sorry all, dyslexia hitting me hard tonight as I am tired.
Login
Register
FAQ
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")
