Of Corset Didn’t Add Anything To What Was Already There, But It Did Make Things More Secure
Well, ObamaReleaseYourRecords is at it again. Here’s another deceptive post:
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment
Abdul Karim Hassan vs FEC – Court Opinion – District Court for the District of Columbia – 10/1/2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION
“Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid.”
“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”
The Birther take on this that YIPPEE, SEE ARTICLE II STILL APPLIES!!! THE !$TH AMENDMENT DIDN’T CHANGE THINGS AFTER ALL!!! Well, nobody on this side ever said Article II didn’t apply. It is the Birthers who either can’t, or won’t, understand the underlying concepts. The simple fact is that far from NOT REPEALING the natural born citizenship requirement for the Presidency, the 14th Amendment actively AFFIRMED the common law concept of birthright citizenship, also known as natural born citizenship. From the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark (1898), near the bottom of Section V:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory,[wild Indian exception omitted.]
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”
and, this case cited with approval by the Wong Kim Ark Court:
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.”
What the heck is sooo darn hard about that??? If you are born here, you are “in the allegiance” of the United States regardless of the citizenship of your parents. If you are born here in the allegiance, or under the jurisdiction of the United States, then you are a natural born citizen. Period. End of story. From WKA:
V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
Paraphrasing ORYR’s favorite quote, the only people who don’t get this, are people who don’t want to get it. The Birthers have been lying and dissembling about this simple legal fact for 4 years. It started with Ankeny in Indiana back in 2008.
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.
No, there wasn’t a difference. Something like 7 or 8 subsequent courts have held the same thing. Sooo, of course the 14th Amendment didn’t overturn the Article II Presidential requirement. It was way too busy affirming the underlying common law concept of natural born citizenship..
The Birthers should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to lie and dissemble about this.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1. The Image. This is Scarlet O’Hara and Mammy from the 1939 film, Gone With The Wind.
Wiki has a great Internet Article on corsets, a foundation garment, which includes Images. This one is from 1898, the same year as Wong Kim Ark!
Wie die Pariserin ihr Haar ordnet (1898 Das Album)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corset
Note 2. Pdf. Here is a pdf of Sullivan’s order. See pages 15 through 18:
Abdul-Karim-Hassan-vs-FEC-Court-Opinion-District-Court-for-the-District-of-Columbia-10-1-2012
October 2nd, 2012 at 11:16 am
Well, I, for one, have spent a lot of time trying to explaining to liberals why the 14th Amendment did not change the parameters of American birthright citizenship. The issue has never been about birthright citizenship, but their access to the ruling class as a ‘strong check’ against foreign influence affecting the Commander in chief of America’s armed forces.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 pm
The problem for you is that no historian, judge in any court, or someone with a basic understanding of the Constitution and history agrees your explanations.
October 2nd, 2012 at 12:37 pm
But David, you haven’t. You’ve simply been repeating your own arguments, that no one else was even having with you in the first place.
Sorry, but you remain an idiot with your head in the sand, on a futile and ficticious quest of your own imagination entirely.
I have not seen any serious non-birther claim that the 14th Amendment “changed the parameters of birthright citizenship” as you put it.
NO, every time you idiots argue this, it is pointed out to you by the rest of us non-Birthers that the 14th Amendment only spoke to what was ALREADY THERE.
The rest of your “ruling class” nonsense remains as ignorant and incompetent to the actual laws, as always. You have repeatedly been given detailed explanations of what “subject to the jurisdiction” actually means, as well as what the only documented exceptions to US citizenship entail (children of ambassadors, invading armies and the like). So, there is no excuse for your continued pigheadedness on these simple concepts anymore, except that you chose to be a wilful liar.
October 2nd, 2012 at 12:56 pm
G
Does that sound like stronger check or a weaker check against foreign influence to you?
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 2nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
The fallacy is in your conflating “weaker” or “stronger” here. It simply is what it is – the standard and appropriate legal authority that a nation exerts over its territory and anyone who crosses into it.
This whole notion of “checks” against “foreign influence” at the time of our nation’s founding has been explained to you countless times. Back in those days, most other nations were a form of monarchy, with hereditary positions of power for certain members of their ruling class. That was the only type of “ruling class” concerns they had – that some child of a king or arch duke or something like that might have title to a foreign throne.
There was NO worry about the vast majority of mere citizens of other nations exerting “foreign influence” here, as those folks simply never had any real power in those monarchical structures to begin with.
Nor is there much relevance to ANY of those concerns today. There are very few monarchies that remain in the modern world and most of them are no longer true positions of power, but mere ceremonial positions.
So no, your fears of “foreign influence” are silly and merely an irrational fear of your own making and NOT something that there is any legitimate legal concern here in our laws at all.
Admit it David, you are simply a xenophobe.
October 2nd, 2012 at 11:28 am
David: Why are you suing a federal judge?
October 2nd, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Because he saw Body of Evidence and correctly–for once–deduced Orly’s fantasy of being muff-dived in a court house parking garage, and hopes to fulfill it for her. After all, she hit the “esteemed” Charles Lincoln, whatever, so she is not discriminating in satisfying her primal urges.
Get real, David, she is not attending court with you–she isn’t even coming to Georgia.
October 2nd, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Ahhh, we have ex animal to smack around again; life is good.
October 2nd, 2012 at 1:55 pm
G
October 2nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Let me see if I understand your post: “Back in those days, when most other nations were a form of monarchy”….is when the Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen clause was first adopted by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. And, although we now all agree the 14th Amendment didn’t change the definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, nevertheless, our Founding Fathers were somehow able to look approximately 100 years into the future and knew things would ultimately change, so they really didn’t mean a natural born Citizen as defined by de Vattel, but by a 1889 Supreme Court decision.
If such nonsense is true, how do you explain the fact that when the first military draft was proposed in August, 1862, Mr. Seward informed Mr. Stuart, then in charge of the British legation at Washington, that all foreign-born persons would be exempt who had not been naturalized, or who were born in the United States of foreign parents?
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 2nd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Hi David,
You must be careful here. You are submitting facts at levels higher than the Obot mind has ever went.
October 2nd, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Wow. Higher than “the Obot mind has ever went.” ?!!
Holy Beezus you’re an idiot.
October 2nd, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Hey David, how’s the Romney eligibility challenge going?
October 2nd, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Hi DavidF!!!
Everybody here really missed you, no matter what they say.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
October 2nd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t. Fools lose their entertainment value, when all they can do is parrot the same long debunked nonsense, over and over and over again. I consider David to be boring and and terminally ignorant dead-ender. But I do give him credit for mostly being polite…But even politeness can only go so far.
October 2nd, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Yes, it’s good to be back home amongst all my friends.
Tell me, Squeeky; didn’t we at one time have this very same debate where you insisted the 14th Amendment now defines American birth right U.S. citizenship?
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 2nd, 2012 at 5:52 pm
DavidF:
I think we have had that conversation several times. It is not so much that the 14th “defines” it, as that it “affirms” it. Born in the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction (14th) is the same thing as born in the dominion under the allegiance (NBC).
I tried to get some guy named Mike Godkin, who wrote some long Birther paper, to answer one question from WKA.
How does the WKA Court define a natural born citizen. He would not touch that one at all. Yet the answer to all the two citizen parent stuff is that one simple answer.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
October 2nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
No David, you are still stuck in your false assumptions and not listening to what I said at all.
I never said that the Framers were “mind readers”. I simply pointed out a separate, yet important point that the world has changed dramatically since their days. If anything, the point there is that our modern world and more importantly, the future is very different than what anyone could have anticipated or predicted back then. So, even in places where the Founders had more specific notions of how the world worked in their time; it would be foolish to be steadfast and stuck on antiquated ideas that no longer make sense.
That being said, the original point was that in the case of “jurisdiction” and fears of “foreign influence”, your particular fearful notions of what those things meant did NOT even mean what you intend, back in their time.. my reference to today’s world is to emphasize that on top of you being wrong about back then, your fanciful fears are even more irrelevant and nonsensical in our modern world.
As I said, even the Framers were NOT worried about the general common foreigner coming here at all. Their worries even then, were pretty much confined to an extremely tiny subset of the world population, which would have birthright claims to thrones in foreign lands, or direct allegence via being an ambassador or an invading army. But otherwise – NO.
What you can’t get around is that even in the qualifications for the highest offices of American power, the residency requirements were fairly low. I mean seriously, a minimum age of 35, yet ONLY 14 years of those are required residency in our country…and NOT even consecutive years at that…nor any statement that those come either at the beginning of their life (formative years) or in the immediate period prior to running for said office. So, our very Constitution is explicitly permissable of someone running for President who spent the MAJORITY of their life living elsewhere! That is hardly a sign of being concerned about the impact of “foreign influence” at all. Nor is there ANY restriction on dual citizenship either. So your stupid fears are not only unfounded in our foundation, but completely contrary to the explicitly permissable scenarios encompassed.
As to your irrelevant final point about 1862, which BTW, has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility nor the definition of NBC… you again demonstrate that all you are doing is desperately looking to quote-mine and cherry pick, without any grasp of context or direct relevance. Our history is replete with misguided acts of xenophobia, borne out of fear, during times of war or strife; to which we now look back in shame and regret. The Chinese Exclusion Acts, are just one example. The internment of Japanese Americans and German Americans during WWII is a more recent example of this.
So yeah, sometimes, in the fog of demagoguery and fear, BAD xenophobic laws are suggested or passed. However, you will notice that our system works to correct those errors and NONE of those laws remain in effect today. There is a good reason for that – such things cannot survive a legal challenge for long, as they go against our Constitutional principles.
But then again, you are a xenophobic bigot – who desires and favors policies that go against our nation’s principles. Which is why folks like you will always remain on the losing end of history.
October 2nd, 2012 at 6:40 pm
G,
Our Founding Fathers didn’t just fear foreigners empowering themselves within our federal government; they were absolute fanatics over the subject. The idea that they would allow a foreign potentate to could come over to this country, have an “issue” (offspring) here, and that person would not only gain US citizen at birth, by have legal access to the Presidency is simply ludicrous in the extreme, and does not represent a stronger check when compared to de Vattel.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 3rd, 2012 at 1:40 am
David – I realize that you have difficulty grasping the meaning of words. You DO understand that “potentate” is what I already described – someone who has a birthright claim to a throne – right? You DO realize that those ARE specifically excluded from US citizenship and that they only comprised a very teeny-tiny portion of the foreign population, right?
Can you grasp that MOST foreign-born people are NOT offspring of foreign “potentates” and therefore did NOT represent ANY threat to the US??? That was true back then and even more true now.
So please stop conflating the two. You are embarrassing yourself. The Founders were NOT “fantatics” against the majority of foreign populaces.
Nor does Vattel have anything to do with our citizenship laws – period. Please drop that completely debunked delusion.
October 3rd, 2012 at 9:05 am
Nativism for the COC does not equal xenophobia. Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers.
October 3rd, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Sorry Jimmy, but NBC does NOT require “parents who are citizens”, when the birth takes place on US soil. That condition alone guarantees NBC status.
Your “those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers” is utter BUNK. While parenting has an obvious effect on children, they grow up to become their OWN persons. Many children turn out to be very different and even opposite of their parents.
October 2nd, 2012 at 11:55 pm
You’re right David. Split allegiances at birth is not COC material. PLUS must reside inside for a minimum of 14 years.
I have relatives in the military, born with split allegiances that would not destroy others in the land of their parents if ordered to do so.
NBC for the COC helps with that….
October 3rd, 2012 at 10:02 pm
G whiz says Vattel’s words are BUNK.
Vattel is describing the most natural form of citizenship by which no law need be written. NBC
October 3rd, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Vattel has nothing to do with US citizenship laws, sorry. His only area of influence on US law was in maritime issues. You remain a gullible fool.
October 3rd, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I did not suggest what his influence was or was not. There is
no need to be sorry.
Your words are that his words are BUNK.
October 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
October 2nd, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Sen. Jacob Howard states the intent of the 14 Amendment published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866
I think we have gone over this once before, but now that the left has finally admitted placing their bets on the 14th was a dead end, perhaps we need to go over again, this business of “jurisdiction” and who is a “native US citizen at birth.”
ex animo
davidfarrar
*[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (view actual page)
October 3rd, 2012 at 5:56 pm
David, what part of “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States” do you not understand?
October 3rd, 2012 at 2:08 pm
G,
October 3rd, 2012 at 1:40 am
Yes, I do realize this…but their offspring aren’t if they are born, according to the Ankeny theory, inside the boundaries of the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 3rd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
David, where exactly does Ankeny state that children of foreign ambassadors or invading armies would be citizens? Sorry, but as usual, you have no understanding of what you are talking about.
October 3rd, 2012 at 10:27 pm
G,
Okay, now I see where we are missing each others thought process.
I probably misused the word “potentate”, which now I see you understood it to mean the ‘foreign ambassador’ exception. But what I meant to imply was — back in 1789, persons of the European ‘nobility’ could have their issues here, while unofficially visiting the US, and they would be not only US Citizens at birth, but have access to our rules class* as well!
I stand corrected (for the second time, no less) on that ‘who are foreigners, aliens’ sentence.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 3rd, 2012 at 3:40 pm
G,
I mean to say:
October 3rd, 2012 at 6:10 pm
David, as Obama is neither the child of a foreign ambassador, NOR of an invading army, this is NOT a concern at all here. It is simply NOT relevant to his case or background whatsoever at all.
October 3rd, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Breanne
As usual, your spoutings make no sense whatsoever. Floyd Brown is really dumb if he pays you on a piece-work basis. Prolific postings that do nothing to advance a position is useless–but it’s not my dime.
Btw, why won’t you end the Obama presidency merely by producing hospital records of your birth. Is it because you have a fake BC?
October 3rd, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Who is Breanne? Monkey Boy, did you post under the wrong thread?