Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35171
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2051

Post by realist »

I found this little booklet on the "The New President George W. Bush" for kids linked at the Examiner. Check out Page 23:[/break1]gl/OlMW7]http://goo.gl/OlMW7 ;)Great catch, RC. :-bd
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16248
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2052

Post by Reality Check »

Here is what it says:Trivia:"Who can be US presidents?""Natural Born Citizens are people born in the United States, or those born of US citizens who are temporarily living in another country such as soldiers or diplomats."
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2053

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Here is what it says:Trivia:"Who can be US presidents?""Natural Born Citizens are people born in the United States, or those born of US citizens who are temporarily living in another country such as soldiers or diplomats."Wrong. In the future, all POTUS candidates have to go through a MichaelN check first. I discern it from Coke's writings.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16248
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2054

Post by Reality Check »

#-o
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12811
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2055

Post by Whatever4 »

Michael reminds me of a classic SNL skit. (I'm not looking back through 82 pages to see if it's been done already.)No Coke, Pepsi. [/break1]hulu.com/watch/3533/saturday-night-live-the-olympia-restaurant]http://www.hulu.com/watch/3533/saturday ... restaurant
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17957
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2056

Post by Suranis »

The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2057

Post by verbalobe »

Then let's have your 'expert' take of what Coke meant when he said sanguinis was one of the TWO essential qualities for NBS.[tabs][tabs] =)) [tabs]YOU [/i]meant] =)) =)) [tabs] =)) =)) =)) [tabs] =)) =)) [tabs] :-({|= -xx[/tabs]

qwertyman
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:10 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2058

Post by qwertyman »

What happened to all the legal 'experts'?Cat got ya tongue? -xx .Yes, you shocked everybody so much that nobody had the heart to respond to you between 4:00 AM and 7:00 AM EST. Well done. That obviously means you won. No other potential explanation why nobody would respond to you at those times.

User avatar
Princess foofypants
Posts: 3050
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:31 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2059

Post by Princess foofypants »

What happened to all the legal 'experts'?Cat got ya tongue? -xx .Yes, you shocked everybody so much that nobody had the heart to respond to you between 4:00 AM and 7:00 AM EST. Well done. That obviously means you won. No other potential explanation why nobody would respond to you at those times.Bwahahaha!

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2060

Post by MichaelN »

natural born subject -'by nature and birthright'natural born subject - 'by procreation and birthright'not a natural born subject - 'not born under the ligeance of a subject'What did Lord Coke mean?Still no takers?Here, I will make it easy for you, seeing as you are all having a problem with comprehension.US natural born Citizen - 'by nature and birthright' - sanguinis and soliUS natural born Citizen - 'by procreation and birthright' - sanguinis and soliNot a US natural born Citizen - 'not born under the allegiance of a Citizen' - soli only, no sanguinis.Do you get it now?I know it's difficult for you, but it is really easy to comprehend, all you need to do is be honest with yourself, get over your shock horror that your beliefs have been shattered and learn to accept the truth of the matter. -xx .

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17957
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2061

Post by Suranis »

I was thinking about something today. Ghandi used to say "First they ignore you, then then they laugh at you , then they fight you, then you win."With MichealN its "First they fight you, then they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then you beg people to pay attention to you while claiming you have somehow won to an uncaring bunch of rightwing websites who also ignore you."Quite sad.
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2062

Post by MichaelN »

I was thinking about something today. Ghandi used to say "First they ignore you, then then they laugh at you , then they fight you, then you win."With MichealN its "First they fight you, then they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then you beg people to pay attention to you while claiming you have somehow won to an uncaring bunch of rightwing websites who also ignore you."Quite sad.What's really sad, is that you know what I have presented verbatim from Lord Coke, clearly shows that sanguinis is one of the TWO essential qualities required for 'natural born', and all you can do in your desperate attempts to deny & suppress this, is to resort to childish pathetic ad hominem where you attack the person at all costs to avoid the argument.Which means you have NOTHING that can refute the proven fact that has been presented.All you are doing is squirming, writhing, gnashing teeth and spewing garbage in your denial.THAT is what is really sad .............. look what have you become, you have sold your soul..

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2063

Post by gentrfam »

So, I'm a builder and I believe the Bears play football in the city of Tampa. I build a shiny new stadium in the city of Tampa. I build it for the Bears to play in. It costs me $250 million, but there it is. It is real.





Michael comes along and says, "G-man, you couldn't possibly have built a stadium in Tampa, because the Bears play in Chicago. It is factually the case that the Bears play in Chicago and, therefore, that shiny new stadium I see behind you must also be in Chicago. You must also be in Chicago. Further, since I can see by the digital thermometer on your stadium that it is a balmy 80 degrees outside, Chicago must be warm during the winter."





"But, Michael," I say, "even if I was operating under a mistaken interpretation of where the Bears play, the stadium behind me is, in fact, in Tampa. I had my idiosyncratic interpretation of Bears' geography and this is where I ended up. The Bears' stadium I built behind me is, in fact, in Tampa."





"No! It's in CHICAGO! And, if it's not in Chicago, and since you insist it's in Tampa, it must not be for the Bears. So, to summarize: It is in Chicago because it is for the Bears and it is not for the Bears because it is in Tampa!"





Leaving aside the fact that Calvin's Case says that Calvin's dad remains an alien, that nature, birthright, and procreation are not the same as jus sanguinis the fact of the matter is that the Founders believed that an alien that came into New York and had a baby had a natural born subject before the Revolution and a natural born citizen after the Revolution.





One of two things is true here. Either the understanding of Calvin's Case changed from Michael's understanding of how it was decided in 1608 and the founding in 1789, or the understanding in 1789 was always the way the Case was understood. Either the Founders were correct in thinking that the alien that came here had a natural born citizen because of Calvin's Case, or they weren't. What's not true is that anyone in the history of the English language has ever understood Calvin's Case mean what Michael thinks it means.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2064

Post by Plutodog »

The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2065

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg »

Let's play





J E O P A R D Y !







The category is "Calvin's Case."





I'll take "Calvin's Case" for $500, Alex." And the answer is ...





Polly J. Price














Who is the eminent legal scholar and Professor of Law and Associated Faculty at Emory University, member of Phi Beta Kappa, professor of American constitutional history, and author of two books and numerous articles, including [link]NATURAL LAW AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN CALVIN'S CASE (1608),http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm[/link], published in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities?"That is correct. Butterfly, you win the category."________________________________________________




Calvin's Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth. In the view of Sir Edward Coke, one of the judges deciding Calvin's Case, the court's determination was required by the divine law of nature, which was "indeed . . . the eternal law of the Creator" and "part of the law of England."





Coke's report of Calvin's Case was one of the most important English common-law decisions adopted by courts in the early history of the United States. Rules of citizenship derived from Calvin's Case became the basis of the American common-law rule of birthright citizenship, a rule that was later embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and which is now the subject of heated political and legal debate. Remarkably, the rule of birthright citizenship derived from Calvin's Case remained a status conferred by the common law, as opposed to statutory or constitutional law, for centuries. Until 1898 in the United States, and as late as 1949 in Britain, there were still some cases in which the determination of nationality depended upon the common-law rule of birth within a territory.





[snip]





The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis





Before examining the issues in Calvin's Case, it is useful to have some understanding of current methods for assigning citizenship or nationality at birth. The territorial rule derived from Calvin's Case rendered the status of British colonists different from that of colonists of other European countries. Calvin's Case led to what is today known in international law as the jus soli, the rule under which nationality is acquired by the mere fact of birth within the territory of a state. The other great rule for assigning nationality at birth, the jus sanguinis, is identified with the civil law. It holds that, regardless of the place of birth, nationality is acquired by descent following the status of at least one parent (usually the father). The United States, Great Britain, and many Latin American countries traditionally have favored the jus soli over the jus sanguinis as a rule for acquisition of citizenship by birth. By contrast, the jus sanguinis has been the favored rule in almost all European nations.





"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2066

Post by Welsh Dragon »

That's spooky BB! I was reading Price's article earlier this evening. Have you hacked my laptop? :)

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2067

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg »

That's spooky BB! I was reading Price's article earlier this evening. Have you hacked my laptop? :)Mind meld, WD. We think alike for a reason. :hug:
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30412
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2068

Post by Foggy »

Humph. How come they give Polly Price all them fancy schmancy titles if'n she cain't even understand Calvin's case as good as our eminent constitutional scholar Mikey the Uneducated Non-Lawyer from Oz, holder of the Rickety Chair of Constitutional Dishonesty at the highly regarded University of Usurperation and publisher of 542 posts on the vaunted Fogbow?Don't make no sense. No wonder he taunts everybody here for not havin' any answer to his repetitive prevarications.
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2069

Post by MichaelN »

[quote name=Butterfly Bilderberg]Let's play





J E O P A R D Y !







The category is "Calvin's Case."





I'll take "Calvin's Case" for $500, Alex."




And the answer is ...





Polly J. Price














Who is the eminent legal scholar and Professor of Law and Associated Faculty at Emory University, member of Phi Beta Kappa, professor of American constitutional history, and author of two books and numerous articles, including [link]NATURAL LAW AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN CALVIN'S CASE (1608),http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm[/link], published in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities?"




That is correct. Butterfly, you win the category."




________________________________________________




Calvin's Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth. In the view of Sir Edward Coke, one of the judges deciding Calvin's Case, the court's determination was required by the divine law of nature, which was "indeed . . . the eternal law of the Creator" and "part of the law of England."





Coke's report of Calvin's Case was one of the most important English common-law decisions adopted by courts in the early history of the United States. Rules of citizenship derived from Calvin's Case became the basis of the American common-law rule of birthright citizenship, a rule that was later embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and which is now the subject of heated political and legal debate. Remarkably, the rule of birthright citizenship derived from Calvin's Case remained a status conferred by the common law, as opposed to statutory or constitutional law, for centuries. Until 1898 in the United States, and as late as 1949 in Britain, there were still some cases in which the determination of nationality depended upon the common-law rule of birth within a territory.





[snip]





The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis





Before examining the issues in Calvin's Case, it is useful to have some understanding of current methods for assigning citizenship or nationality at birth. The territorial rule derived from Calvin's Case rendered the status of British colonists different from that of colonists of other European countries. Calvin's Case led to what is today known in international law as the jus soli, the rule under which nationality is acquired by the mere fact of birth within the territory of a state. The other great rule for assigning nationality at birth, the jus sanguinis, is identified with the civil law. It holds that, regardless of the place of birth, nationality is acquired by descent following the status of at least one parent (usually the father). The United States, Great Britain, and many Latin American countries traditionally have favored the jus soli over the jus sanguinis as a rule for acquisition of citizenship by birth. By contrast, the jus sanguinis has been the favored rule in almost all European nations.










Yes, in England a child born to one who was considered a 'subject' and born in the realm of the sovereign that the 'subject', was called a 'natural born subject'.





Whether the parent was already a 'subject' or an alien in amity who was also considered a 'subject' by local ligeance.





Because the child was born in the realm, the child had a birthright, which was ONE quality required of TWO essential qualities, and needed also 'nature' aka 'procreation' to complete the TWO essential qualities.





Coke:





"by nature and birthright"





"by procreation and birthright"





Coke gave an example of the alien born Frenchman who by visiting, in amity, had local ligeance, which was strong enough to make him a 'natural subject' (but not 'born')





The French man had to have the quality of local ligeance to make him a 'subject', for his child, if born in the same realm that the Frenchman had the local ligeance to the sovereign of that realm, for his child to be a NBS.





It was the 'nature' of the Frenchman's 'subject' status, that the child needed, to complete the TWO qualities the child needed to be a NBS.





The child needed to inherit that natural ('nature') from the father, hence 'by nature' and 'by procreation'





Ergo: the 'subject' status of the father MATTERED.





Everyone who resided in England (except foreign ambassadors, etc) whether a true non-alien local, a friendly alien born visitor with local ligeance, one with 'legal ligeance' (via oath) or a denizen, was considered a 'subject' of the sovereign of England.





Not everyone, who was born in the realm, was a 'natural born subject', IF THE PARENT did not qualify them.





Hence Coke's example of enemy aliens visiting the realm, who's children, even if born in the realm, were no 'natural born subjects' because they were 'not born under the ligeance of a subject'.





Sanguinis was an essential key element to qualifying who was, or who was not a NBS when born in the realm.





This is the best Polly's got on the matter of 'Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright' - (Polly in yellow)





"Calvin the plaintiff," Coke wrote, was "naturalized by procreation and birth-right." [FN237] This was because, according to Coke, one's status is "vested by birthright:" [F]or as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crown to which he was alien at the time of his birth. . . . [A]ll those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.




So much for Polly's 'explanation' (not) ............ Polly breezed past 'procreation' like it was the wrong bird-seed, she didn't want to touch it, flew over and kept on squawking as if it didn't exist.





Haven't you got something that has some substance, rather than the ramblings of some pseudo 'authority'?








.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30412
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2070

Post by Foggy »

Toldja so. See how he qualified for the Rickety Chair? =))
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2071

Post by MichaelN »

Humph. How come they give Polly Price all them fancy schmancy titles if'n she cain't even understand Calvin's case as good as our eminent constitutional scholar Mikey the Uneducated Non-Lawyer from Oz, holder of the Rickety Chair of Constitutional Dishonesty at the highly regarded University of Usurperation and publisher of 542 posts on the vaunted Fogbow?Don't make no sense. No wonder he taunts everybody here for not havin' any answer to his repetitive prevarications.Probably, Polly wants a cracker.Polly it seems, got some hand-out funding to write her thesis or whatever and either innocently over-looked what else was written in Coke's report, as regards 'nature and birthright' and 'by procreation and birthright' and 'no subject ...... not born under the ligeance of a subject' or she deliberately omitted discussing it in any detail, if at all.Which if the latter, Polly is a parrot.So why do YOU think Poly left that out? ................ why did Horace Gray leave that part out?Only three possible reasons I can think of that could explain this omission of such crucial parts of Coke's report, either innocent oversight with blind faith in someone else's 'research' of Coke's report, pre-conditioned with soli only in mind & oversight and didn't study the report fully, or deliberate conniving omission.So you dudes apparently think that parroting the polly-parrots carries some semblance of sound argument. That's about as feeble as all the ad hominem rubbish you have been spewing.Still no one here has it in them to offer their own argument that might explain that what Coke said has a meaning other than sanguinis matters.What a dismal display from all the 'experts'. -xx .

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30412
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2072

Post by Foggy »

Yes, Obama showed amazing foresight in bribing Polly Price to misstate Calvin's case in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities ... in 1997.





A good 10 years before he ran for president. A guy who can see that far into the future is a mad genius.





Typical moronic dishonest birther argument -- "She was paid off! Or she didn't understand it!"





Because we can all see that Mikey the Uneducated Lying Non-Lawyer from Oz knows better.





HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2073

Post by MichaelN »

Yes, Obama showed amazing foresight in bribing Polly Price to misstate Calvin's case in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities ... in 1997.





A good 10 years before he ran for president. A guy who can see that far into the future is a mad genius.





Typical moronic dishonest birther argument -- "She was paid off! Or she didn't understand it!"





Because we can all see that Mikey the Uneducated Lying Non-Lawyer from Oz knows better.





HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Still nothing new, desperate ad hominem, attack the messenger, have nothing to be able refute the proven fact, how pathetically feeble.





It's no matter when Polly-parrot cut and pasted and inserted a brief irrelevant blurb, and breezed past 'procreation'.





It's still the same side-step, whatever year, avoiding the crucial 'procreation' statement by Coke, for whatever reason Polly had to dodge it.








.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30412
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2074

Post by Foggy »

Well, you just keep on lying about Calvin's case till you turn blue, pilgrim.We're Americans over here. We don't care how many times you tell the same stupid lie over and over. We know it's a lie, and we've shown why it's a lie, and if you're too stupid to understand it that's your problem, not ours.Meanwhile, guess who's still President of the United States of America? =))
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2075

Post by kate520 »

:roll: This thread is getting stupid and ridiculous. That was a stupid answer. it's ridiculous think mikey is ever going to give an intellectually honest answer. :roll:
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”