English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Oh I see, we can chop and change to suit the agenda to change the US Constitution by stealth, so when there is a court decision that doesn't fit the cause, we pull a rabbit out of the hat and say the discussion within the case overrules the decision, as you do with the Wong Kim Ark case.

Try this....

"In fact, let me double down with another quotation from Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray cites Horace Binney to declare that:

Not only does this show that citizenship is considered as inheritable, but it also shows that the court recognized the difference between a native born child to alien parents as a citizen, and the natural born child of a citizen.

This is also reflected in the decision of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case where Wong was ruled as a "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and not a natural born citizen, as Virginia Minor was held to be, where she was held as such WITHOUT referring to any definition in the US Constitution, said US Constitution included the 14TH Amendment.

The Wong Kim Ark case was a case about "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and the decision reflects this.

It was never a case about eligibility for POTUS, just like (the Obot mantra chant that) the Minor case was not about citizenship.

In fact Article II "natural born Citizen" is not an eligibility criteria to be met to establish "citizen of the United States", it is the eligibility criteria, based on national security, with an extra condition to be met for those in the pool of born "citizens of the United States" to be eligible for POTUS.

 

Since Title 8 also provides that

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; "

then Congress, by your logic, could also declare that persons born in the US are not citizens by amending Title 8. Isn't a more logical explanation that Title 8 is declarative of the US common law tradition of jus soli and jus sanguinus and that both are natural born citizens? I have seen nothing to more logically define natural born that those who are citizens by birth vs. those who undergo a process of naturalization either as a consenting adult or children of those who undergo the naturalization process. Yes, Rogers v Bellei muddies the waters a bit but I still maintain that a citizen at birth is natural born until the SCOTUS rules in opposite.

 

Don't be a cretin. First and foremost. everyone in this thread is already aware that you are the only resident chopper and changer present. Second, those comments from the case are completely consistent with the case decision and with the US Constitution.

Your eally need to get a new hobby.

Ignoring that nobody has pretended for a nanosecond that citizenship is not inheritable, the "difference" you pretend the court recognizes there is a figment of your fevered imagination. It in fact declares explicitly that there is no difference between them. Their status as citizens is identical.

 

You have demolished exactly nothing. You couldn't demolish a wine glass with a brick bat. You still to this point completely fail to understand what you keep quoting.

You really need to get a new hobby. One perhaps that relies more on muscle memory than the actual ability to think.

It is not the ligiance of the parents that Coke is referring to at all. It is specifically the ligiance of the neonate, established at the moment of birth by the corresponding protection of the king.

No he doesn't. Conjoining those two words with the conjunction "and" does nothing to distinguish them as different things. They are merely two different ways of describing the same source of citizenship that devolves upon a child at birth via jus soli.

Actually, what you see from that is that your head was firmly in rectal defilade when you asserted that all three criteria were necessary. And again... the ligeance of the father is irrelevant. Only the ligeance of the child matters, and that is established independently of the parents by the baby's immediate dependence on the protection of the king.

The ligeance of the parents is irrelevant.

 

[quotee="MichaelN"]Not only does this show that citizenship is considered as inheritable, but it also shows that the court recognized the difference between a native born child to alien parents as a citizen, and the natural born child of a citizen.[/quote]

Let's see.....

Binney
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

The right of CITIZENSHIP (not to be confused with natural born) never descends by way of TWO things, but it must descend by other means, i.e. Binney recognizes that the right of citizenship descending does exist, but not by the two means he described.

The right of CITIZENSHIP (not to be confused with natural born) is incident to native-birth (which we already know i.e. the 14th Amendment) or it is gifted by statute.

The native-born child of alien parents, via birth in the country (per 14th Amendment) has the right to CITIZENSHIP (not to be confused with natural born) and is a CITIZEN no more and no less, than the natural born child of a citizen, by operation of the same right to citizenship principle, per the 14th Amendment, i.e. via native-birth, aka birth in the country.

Both the native-born child to alien parents, and the native-born natural born child of US citizens are CITIZENS by way of the same right of citizenship, being via birth in the country. (aka "the same operation")

Native birth makes citizen, i.e. makes a born citizen.

A born citizen to US citizen parents makes a natural born citizen.

That's why Wong was ruled to be a "citizen" and NOT a natural born citizen, i.e. "he was not born under the ligeance of a" US citizen.

As you should have grasped by now, Article II "natural born citizen" is not an eligibility requirement for citizenship.

Once again you have been exposed for your dishonesty and for the deception you spew; your nasty ad hominem attacks becoming more frequent as your desperation increases with your futile attempts to maintain your lies are frustrated at every turn as the truth smacks you down, time and time again.

You really need to chill-out and face the truth like a man.............. learn to live with it.

 

Worthy of note.................

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?po...ogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=3

 

It does no such thing.

It recognizes that the citizenship status of the children of aliens and the children of citizens is identical.

Actually, your "reasoning" there is nonexistent as usual. Binney's declaration is that (in the legal sense) citizenship does not descend at all. The two means he described may or may not be legally inclusive, but your elaboration of Binney's comment to pretend it recognizes some other route is a complete fabrication. As such, the rest of your argument derived from that false assertion needs no additional attention.

So, let's just dwell for the required fraction of a moment on the sentence that you insist says the opposite of what it actually says:

Binney offers two different circumstances of birth. They are 1) the child of an alien born in this country, and 2) the child of a citizen born in this country.

He asserts that the former is "as much a citizen" as the latter. And to put as fine a point as possible on this identicality he goes on to point out that this citizenship is granted "by operation of the same principle."

This of course is a direct contradiction of your claim that the former is actually less of a citizen than the latter, since (in your erroneous opinion) the latter is a "natural-born citizen" while the former is not.

In what strange alternative universe of reason and rationality does an assertion that two things are the same become a demonstration of their difference?

But most importantly, his elaboration regarding "operation of the same principle" twists the knife in your argument by establishing that even the children of citizens (if born in this country) do not inherit their citizenship jus sanguinis from their parents. They obtain their birthright the same way the children of aliens do; via jus soli.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... using that birther time machine again, Mike? The comment you quote from Horace Binney comes from an essay called The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws that he wrote in 1853. The 14th Amendment was not written and ratified until 15 years later. By what rending of the time space continuum do you imagine Binney was associating the jus soli birthright of children of aliens with an Amendment that would not even exist for another decade and a half?

They are not just "citizens." The former is "as much a citizen" as the latter. Under Binney's construction, if the latter is a natural-born citizen, the former must be too. Because one is just "as much a citizen" as the other.

How ironic. You do realize (I hope) that Virginia Minor was never ruled a "natural born citizen" either, right? Do you really want to apply this standard to the Wong decision in an effort to squirm around the ratio decidendi of the court? Because if it were valid, any damage it did to Gray's ratio would be a fraction of the devastation it would wreck on your beloved dicta from Minor.

Alas, later judges with nearly a century of legal experience between them have already called bullsh*t on this particular birther argument. From Ankeny:

About that new hobby you need... maybe boomerang catching?

 

With over 200 years of history since the ratification of the US Constitution we have established common law in the United States but at the adoption of the US Constitution there was no common law in the United States.

So while we had no common law in the United States at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution the provisions of the Constitution were "framed in the language of the English common law" and could be read based upon that. By way of analogy the "American language" is based upon the "English language" but they are not the same. We have gasoline and they have petrol and we have a trunk on our cars and they have a boot. Different words have different meanings just as "subject" and "citizen" are not the same words nor do they have the same meanings when we compare English common law and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

This was the criteria for a "subject" of the King and did not reflect citizenship as citizenship did not exist under the English common law, and, in fact, does not exist today as England remains a monarchy. Technically the British Parlament exists at the discretion of the monarch of England and could, in theory, be abolished by the monarchy (probably leading to a revolution but that is not the issue as that revolution would need to overthrow the monarchy).

So while it is established that the United States Constitution uses the language of the English common law, and the interpretation of the language used must be considered in the context of the English common law, the English common law did not apply to the United States of America under the US Constitution.

In addressing "natural born citizenship" in the United States the Supreme Court did refer to the English common law as it was applicable to the understanding of the term "natural born citizenship" as used in the Constitution. As noted the words "subject" and "citizen" did not mean or imply the same thing but the definitions of "citizen" as used in the US Constitution could be understood by what the common law definition of "subject" was under the English common law. It is like comparing a tree to a bush that are not the same but closely related.

So the Supreme Court addressed what it was to be an English subject because the word "citizen" had it's roots in the word "subject" when the Constitution was written.

Those born in the Colonies of North America were "natural-born British subjects" and those same individuals became "natural-born US citizens" when the Constitution was ratified. The same criteria was applied although there were fundamental differences because a citizen is not a subject of the government.

No reference is made related to the parents of the child but instead natural-born citizenship was always understood to be exclusively conferred based upon "the place of birth" from the very ratification of the United States Constitution.

From the very inception of the United States those born in the United States were "natural born citizens" and roughly 100 years later when the 14th Amendment was ratified this didn't change. The 14th Amendment merely enumerated that a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was a natural born citizen which had always been the definition of a natural born citizen of the United States (which had been violated under the statutory laws that allowed slavery to exist). The 14th Amendment merely corrected an injustice where "natural born citizenship" was being denied under statutory laws but never changed the established criteria of natural born citizenship that had always existed in the United States.

Of note if "jus sanguisis" had been a criteria of "natural born citizenship" during the history of the United States before the 14th Amendment then the criteria for natural born citizenship would have been included in the 14th Amendment but it was not.

Natural born citizenship based upon jus sanguisis (i.e. the Right of Blood) was never an accepted criteria for natural born citizenship in the United States which is why that criteria does not exist in the 14th Amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Arguments that natural-born citizenship ever referred to citizenship established based upon jus sanguisis (i.e. the Right of Blood) fail on all counts. It never existed in the United State under the US Constitution and was never even considered as a foundation for natural-born citizenship at the adoption of the US Constitution and was certainly not considered as being the foundation for natural-born citizenship when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

Only natural-born citizenship based upon jus soli (i.e. the Right of Soil) was ever considered to be the foundation for natural-born citizenship in the United States as all Supreme Court decisions and even the very language of the 14th Amendment document.

 

MichaelN is trying to use Binney again? John Woodman wrote a very detailed article on Horace Binney's essay and how the Birthers use and abuse it when it does not support their position at all. Horace Binney Directly Refutes the Mario Apuzzo/ Leo Donofrio Lie that it Takes Two Citizen Parents to Make a Natural Born Citizen

 

This is why for the discussion of events in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries I generally refer to "Anglo-American common law." But certainly you would not suggest that we attempt to interpret the original language and meaning of the Constitution using common law that was not developed until some decades or centuries later, would you? If "subject" and "citizen" were understood to mean the same thing in 1787, what possible basis would you have for asserting any significance to a difference that might have hypothetically evolved much later?

Anachronism is a very easy mistake to make when considering the history and evolution of law. Just one post ago I had to correct MichaelN for trying to claim that a quotation from Horace Binney was based on the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, Binney wrote the relevant essay in 1853, and the 14th Amendment would not come into existence until 15 years later. The discussion of how American common law has evolved since the framing of the Constitution is all well and good, but it does nothing to help us understand original intent or original construction. This is an ironic argument for me to make, since I am not generally a strict constructionist. But for this discussion I can't see how we get around it.

Oh, oh, oh... too far. Citizenship absolutely does exist in the UK today. As a relic of empire British citizenship laws are far more complex and envision far more different classes of citizenship than does US law, but there is nothing unambiguous about your error here.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/

Nothing could be further from the truth. It would be equally... nay, it would be more true to assert the contra-positive ... that technically the British Monarchy exists at the discretion of Parliament and could, in theory, be abolished by Parliament. No revolution would be likely in that instance.

But back to the subject, none of this has anything to do with any genuine distinction between "subject" and "citizen." Citizenship derives just as firmly from the reciprocal duties between a citizen's allegiance and the government's protection as subject-hood derives from the reciprocal duties between a subject's allegiance and the Queen's protection. As in all other affective respects, they are identical in that regard. As I have already demonstrated by two separate quotations from Gray's decision, they are the same. You promised contradictory quotations from the same decision saying otherwise.

Where are they?

Well... I disagree pretty strongly but that claim is actually untrue for different reasons as well. 49 out of the 50 US states have formally adopted the English common law as their own common law through either their State Constitutions or formal "reception statutes." The only exception is Louisiana which, because of the historical accident of its original possession by France, has adopted Napoleonic code instead. English common law has always applied in the United States to include under the original Articles of Confederation, and then later under the Constitution..

Other than that, the claim that we could effectively understand the Constitution "in the context of" English common law and at the same time somehow avoid thereby applying it seems at tad oxymoronic. I would expect in the least that anyone making such an assertion could point to where American jurists or legislators explicitly draw that distinction. The entire foundation of stare decisis requires that we resist such change with a bias so powerful that we accept even violations of common sense until they become too costly for society to bear. Conformance with precedent is not a mere "tendency" under our system; it is an obligation so compulsive that when precedent is overturned it is front page news in every major paper in America.

Let me ask directly... if English common law is not of deep influence on this issue, why are cases from pre-colonial English history so prominently featured in the Wong Kim Ark decision? If we were not applying English common law, what is Calvin's Case doing there at all?

The demarcation between what is a "tree" and what is a "bush" is completely arbitrary. There is a vast continuum between them that are not obviously either. If you wish to distinguish between "subject" and "citizen" in anything resembling an affective manner you will need to provide something less arbitrary and superficial than that one pertains to a monarchy and the other to a republic. We have seen that there is no distinction in the foundational reciprocal relationship of "leigance for protection" between them.

So... help me out here. What exactly do you bleieve is the effective difference between them that makes any distinction relevant to this discussion?

Again, we have seen that the decision in Wong Kim Ark says that a citizen absolutely is a subject of the government. Here again is Justice Gray quoting Chancellor Kent approvingly:

In fact, it is not mere etymological coincidence or equivocation that even the 14th Amendment requires that citizenship derive from the circumstance (among others) of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The monarchical term "subject" is the explicit assertion that the individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the monarch in the identical way that we as US citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Actually... not quite. The 14th Amendment corrected no "statutory" error at all, since the citizenship of black ex-slaves was not being denied based on statute... though certainly the possibility that this might change was among the reasons the clause was added to the amendment by Jacob Howard. They were ironically being denied citizenship based on the common law precedent of Scott v. Sandford. Here is a clear example of where later American common law diverged from the English common law that was its foundation. The 14th Amendment actually course corrected the common law back to its original English roots.

Once again, you are trying to impose on the 14th Amendment a purpose that is patently irrelevant to its actual ambition. What issue do you imagine existed regarding the jus sanguinis acquisition of citizenship by ex-slaves? What circumstance of post-civil war black citizenship would have elicited even the vaguest inkling that the 14th Amendment should suddenly encompass a comprehensive restatement of US citizenship law?

Remember, the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was an afterthought. American citizenship law would be effectively unchanged without it.

For at least the third time, I point you to the Naturalization Act of 1790. Its mere existence proves that comment to be objectively false.

 

Binney acknowledged that there were two types of born citizens who were equal as "citizens" by "operation of the same principle", i.e. native birth.

One was described by Binney as "natural born" BECAUSE of being born to US citizen PARENTS.

Justice Gray didn't have a problem with this in the Wong Kim Ark court and as well he cited to Minor V Happersett, wherein the US Supreme court held that it was reasonably doubted that native-birth to aliens would even make a citizen at all, i.e. at the time of the Minor V Happersett case in 1875, it WAS NOT SETTLED LAW if native-birth to aliens were citizens, due to the fact that the SCOTUS said that the doubts were yet to be resolved.

In saying this, it is reasonable to conclude that the Minor court, saw the native-born to alien parents as alien-born until such time as the doubts were resolved, it is absurd to assert that these people were POTUS material when the SCOTUS were not even sure if they made citizen at all.

In light of this, it is not possible for "natural born citizen" to have meant a person born in US to alien parents.

The decision for Wong Kim Ark was born citizen i.e. "citizen of the United States" and WKA only scraped through due to consideration of his parents long time domiciled residence in and business contribution to the US.

The WKA court could easily have ruled Wong to be a natural born citizen, if they really believed he was such, but the court DIDN'T, because he was "not born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents and the court only ruled Wong a citizen.

Wong was not one of those born citizens who was (as Binney put it) the "natural born child of a citizen".

 

meanwhile, obama remains president, having been elected twice and sworn in by the chief justice of the supreme court, birthers have lost over 200 straight court cases and not a single legal scholar or court of law agrees in the US or the UK with michael's made up definition of natural born citizen(subject)

it continues to suck to be a birther

 

Yes, that really says it all. The only ones questioning the President's eligibility with a JD are a small band of kooks like Mario Apuzzo and Herb Titus. 99.9999% of the attorneys in the US know that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that Birthers are nut jobs.

 

Wrong. He never even hints at two types of citizen. He certainly acknowledged that there are two types of parent. But the entire purpose of that passage is to establish that parentage doesn't matter... the citizenship of the children is identical either way.

The parent's status was irrelevant because the reciprocal obligation of allegiance and protection was between the child and the government, not between the child's parents and the government. This is "the same principle" of which Binney speaks.

You should maybe try Koala wrestling.

Natural born.... what? Not citizens. Natural born children. How is the child of an alien any less their natural born child than the child of a citizen? You figure that out and you'll have a whole new field of biology.

That's okay. Justice Gray (along with the other 5 concurring Justices) went on to fill in that particular blank in Justice Waite's dicta. While you may fantasize that it was not settled law prior to Wong Kim Ark, it was certainly settled law afterwards. Justice Fuller certainly understood that it meant that Wong was an NBC, because Fuller complained in his dissent about the decision making Wong eligible for the presidency. And he was not at all happy about it.

The Minor court could not possibly haven give a hoot in hell on that issue as it was not before the court. This explains why Justice Waite did not even feel it worth the effort to bother. In fact... it is the reason he gives for blowing off any discussion of the issue.

One more time with feeling... Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. Virginia Minor's citizenship was conceded by both sides, and so was never even an issue before the court.

And yet, Justice Gray tells us that's exactly what it means.

The Ankeny judges practically poked you in the eye to get your attention before declaring that assertion full of (*)(*)(*)(*). There was no need to include that footnote at all other than to scream, "Hey birthers!!! Pay attention!!! When you whine that the decision never actually calls Wong an NBC, you're being stupid!!!"

I'll ignore for now that you try here to introduce yet another term of which you clearly have no understanding; "domicile."

That's okay. The court still left us with the only definition of natural born citizen that has ever been cited by any subsequent court. To whit:

Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of an alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born citizen.

Unless Wong was hatched from an egg, yes, he was most certainly a natural born child.

And since he was born on US soil, he was also a natural born citizen.

You could take up Kookaburra breeding. Or maybe train to be a contestant on "Kitchen Whiz."

 

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

That's right "he never even hints at two types of citizen" and I never said he did, you are not only delusional, but you are making stuff up as you go along your deception spree.

Binney recognized TWO TYPES OF BORN CITIZENS who were both born citizens "by operation of the same principle", which "is incident to birth in the country".

Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark court had no problem with Binney's observation.

The born citizen with US citizen parents, is who Binney described as "the natural born child" BECAUSE the child has US citizen parents.

"natural born" meant to not only be a native born citizen, but also to be born to US citizen parents.

That's correct, and because of the difference in parents, one of the born citizens was declared by Binney to be the "natural born child of a citizen".

So once again now.......

The born citizen with US citizen parents, is who Binney described as "the natural born child" BECAUSE the child has US citizen parents, and was not born to the other type of parents who were the alien parents.

"natural born" meant to not only be a native born citizen, but also to be born to US citizen parents.

You don't know what the "entire purpose of thet passage" was at all, you are making stuff up again.

"that passage" tells us just what was said, i.e. native-birth is the incident of birth in the country, being a common principle, which makes born citizens of equal standing as citizens, and it is the born citizen with citizen parents who is known as the natural born citizen.

It's really simple stuff.

More fairy-dust................. well that not true, it's actually, garbage!

The actual allegiance and obligations that go with it on the part of a citizen cannot be compared with the scant if any allegiance associated with an alien visitor, that's why an alien who succeeds in application for citizenship is required to swear an oath of allegiance, so as to bring him up to speed with the allegiance of the citizens.

But keep squirming, it's becoming so entertaining that I could seriously make it my hobby, i.e. smacking down deceivers with the truth and watching them squirm.

Binney.....

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

"The right of citizenship" is "incident to birth in the country" which is the same principle shared by all native born citizens, whether they are just a plain born citizen or the other type of born citizen Binney described as "the natural born child(citizen) of" citizen parents.

Binney acknowledged that there were two types of born citizens who were equal as "citizens" by "operation of the same principle", i.e. native birth.

One was described by Binney as "natural born" BECAUSE of being born to US citizen PARENTS.

Justice Gray didn't have a problem with this in the Wong Kim Ark court and as well he cited to Minor V Happersett, wherein the US Supreme court held that it was reasonably doubted that native-birth to aliens would even make a citizen at all, i.e. at the time of the Minor V Happersett case in 1875, it WAS NOT SETTLED LAW if native-birth to aliens were citizens, due to the fact that the SCOTUS said that the doubts were yet to be resolved.

In saying this, it is reasonable to conclude that the Minor court, saw the native-born to alien parents as alien-born until such time as the doubts were resolved, it is absurd to assert that these people were POTUS material when the SCOTUS were not even sure if they made citizen at all.

In light of this, it is not possible for "natural born citizen" to have meant a person born in US to alien parents.

The decision for Wong Kim Ark was born citizen i.e. "citizen of the United States" and WKA only scraped through due to consideration of his parents long time domiciled residence in and business contribution to the US.

The WKA court could easily have ruled Wong to be a natural born citizen, if they really believed he was such, but the court DIDN'T, because he was "not born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents and the court only ruled Wong a citizen.

Wong was not one of those born citizens who was (as Binney put it) the "natural born child of a citizen".

 

Michael... why post almost the identical post to one which was just eviscerated? Are you really childish enough to embrace the magical thinking that if you just say something enough times eventually you will get a pony?

My previous response stands. Binney's statement affirmed only the following:

Citizenship never "descends" in the legal sense. There is no principle of jus sanguinis at all for children born on US soil. Citizenship at birth for anybody born on US soil derives from operation of the same principle of jus soli. And the citizenship of those children, regardless of whether their parents were aliens or citizens, is identical.

It is usually fascinating to watch (in a car crash sort of way) somebody twist themselves in complex knots in the effort to insist that something says the opposite of what it really says.

But you've officially gotten boring.

 

..........

 

See the problem?

So you figure the common law referred to in 7A was created sometime between 6/21/1788 and 12/15/1791. Have I got that about right?

 

Appeals Court Rules Foreign-Born Hassan Not Natural

Born Citizen: 14th Amendment Did Not Repeal Article II

FROM THE ORDER:

To the extent appellant maintains that Article II, Section I, clause 5 of the United States Constitution has been implicitly repealed to the extent it bars naturalized citizens such as himself from holding the office of President, appellant failed to state a claim for relief. Appellant cites no authority to support his contention that a constitutional provision can be implicitly repealed, nor has he shown the natural-born citizen requirement is in irreconcilable conflict with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or that those amendments “cover[ ] the whole subject” of the requirement and are “clearly intended as a substitute.” Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003).


i'll bet there are more birthers working on this case than obots. dead issue ?? not so much... the truth is marching on...

 

And which one of the 350 court rulings you have lost would that one be.

 

what exactly do you think this case has to do with obama?

 

you see, this agressive style of writing just doesn't sound like the john woodman that i knew.


John Woodman says:

October 6, 2012 at 9:15 am


HOW can anyone in good conscience, with even a basic understanding of the English language claim that minor refuses to answer who and what is a natural born citizen?

First of all, because saying “Virginia is quite clearly a natural born citizen” is not a statement that Bob is not.

And secondly, because they themselves TOLD us they were not going to get into the issue. How hard is that to understand?

Part B of all of this: Stupid birthers (like you, TJ) treat as “binding precedent” a tiny one or two-sentence SIDE COMMENT in Minor, which was backed by NO RESEARCH OR AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER, even when the Court itself told you the issue wasn’t necessary for the case —

and then insist that the 50-page or so DETAILED ANALYSIS of natural-born citizenship which followed in Wong, with about 200 references attached, was irrelevant “dicta.”

What’s wrong with this picture, TJ?

I’ll tell you what’s wrong. It is the practice of DISHONEST LIARS and the FOOLS who follow them.

It is just ludicrously and insanely STUPID to insist that Minor was “binding precedent” and Wong was “dicta.” I mean, for anyone who has a freaking CLUE, this is pretty elementary.

So just as there are only two kinds of citizens — natural-born and naturalized — there are only two types of people who believe or promote the “Minor was precedent, Wong is dicta” BS.

There are the DISHONEST LIARS AND CHARLATANS, who understand what constitutes dicta and what constitutes precedent — like MARIO APUZZO — and then there are the PEOPLE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND LAW WHO ARE EITHER IDIOTS, SUCKERS OR BOTH. Like you, TJ.

I don’t know whether your Harvard law father is still alive, TJ. If he is, go and ask him how it is that a Supreme Court case that mentions a matter in a one-or-two-sentence side comment, which produces absolutely zero discussion and quotes absolutely zero authority, and which TELLS you the matter is completely irrelevant to the resolution of the case, could possibly produce a “binding precedent” on that matter. He’ll tell you you’re imagining something that isn’t there.

Then ask him whether a 50-page discussion of a matter by the US Supreme Court, with a couple hundred or so references to prior laws and authorities, is going to produce a precedent on that matter. What do you think he’s going to tell you, TJ?

All of these things have already been discussed here, in great detail. But you came here thinking that you knew everything, and that anybody other than the great TJ McCann the Third didn’t know what they were talking about.

In so doing, you have only made an enormous ass of yourself.




hmmmmm. i wonder..... http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...-the-constitution-was-it-ever-needed-or-used/

this quirky midwest, big toe in the sand homeboy, overnight became an intellectual constitutional authority and expert on eligibility case law. oh, and with a newfound cocky colorado liberal attitude.

 

Right. Not only is frank not frank, but now John Woodman is not John Woodman.

And Woodman did not become an expert overnight, he was studying this stuff for well over a year when he said that, AND dealing with idiot birthers would turn the most passive person into a raging screamer. Its quite funny. when he started he could never understand why we didn't have any respect for birthers, and by the end he had pretty much lost all patience with you idiots same as everyone else who has dealt with you for any length of time. Hearing the same (*)(*)(*)(*) you have just debunked repeated endlessly as fact will do that to you.

 

It is a lie to assert there have been 350 court rulings in the matter of POTUS eligibility.

There has never been any US Supreme Court rulings on the matter of the true meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen" eligibility for POTUS.

None have been lost, to assert any have is also a lie, something you do a lot.

 

A denial of an appeal is a ruling, MichealN. Its affirming the ruling of the lower court, and saying that you don't have a case worth debating. Therefore SCOTUS has ruled, what, 18 times now?