In article ,
Mark Rand wrote:

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:55:21 -0600, aarcuda69062
wrote:



Don't want a new president, I want a legal president.


That's good,

Of course it is.

you got one.

Hasn't been determined yet.

Now STFU.

Pegs the irony meter.

Let the Record show that RBnDFW on or about
Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:57:45 -0600 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Let the Record show that RBnDFW on or about
Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:57:23 -0600 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:30:37 -0600, aarcuda69062
wrote:

There are some who've openly admitted that they fear the ****storm that
would result if Obama were removed from office for usurping the
presidency. They are right of course, we saw the results in LA some
years back, just multiply it 10,000 fold

Huh? What did I forget after I had the stroke? LA?
OJ riots


Oh yeah, I remember that movie. "Based" on a true story, OJ is
this football player who gets a batch of steroids contaminated with
some experimental growth hormones, gained super strength, but when
angered turned brown and struck out violently. I think the ending
(Of him on top of the US Bank Tower in Los Angeles, swatting at Apache
helicopters) was just a bit over the top, and too derivative of the
original King Kong. But - that's Hollywood for you.

"I'll have some of whatever he's having"

Loose grasp of the English Language.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"aarcuda69062" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):

"...and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a
natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other
diplomatic
agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of
the
place where the child was born.

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this
continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the
United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution
as
originally established."

Am I supposed to confuse the historic references used by the justices
with their actual decision?
Their decision [in Wong] applied strictly to the question of
citizenship. Nothing else.

They said "natural-born." They used the same term, in a paraphrased version
of the above, in the dissent. While it's not strictly precedential, this is
the last substantial case in which the subject was explored and the Justices
on both sides made a clear statement about it. If it had come to a case in
which the point had to be adjudicated, it would have been the primary
precedent.


You may recall that you were quoting the Happersett case, which was
decided
in 1875.

You may recall that Happersett was quoted in Wong so it is no less
relevant than your above references to English Common Law.

But all that the Court said in Happersett was that they did not intend to
decide the issue. So what precedent do you think it establishes? Wong quotes
Happersett only to establish that both Courts agree that the Constitution
says nothing about the issue, and that they have to revert to English common
law for an answer. But Happersett doesn't even attempt to do so. In the Wong
case, the Court did exactly that -- in great detail.



Ark was good law until January of this year, at which time the
issue was decided by statute.

Statute can not overpower the constitution.

It doesn't have to in this case. The Constitution does not define "natural
born." That's what statutes are for.


However, you neglected a key line from Happersett, the very next sentence
after the section that you quoted:

"For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
doubts."

They had doubts. Imagine that!

In other words, they didn't know and didn't care, because it didn't bear on
the case -- in other words, it's obiter dicta, anyway. Yet, somehow, you've
seized on this case, which clearly states that they are not deciding the
issue, and concluding through some weird logic that it means something.

What I'd like to know is where you got the Happersett reference. Obviously
it's something dredged up by a birther with time on his hands, because even
a few minutes spent reading it clarifies that it's of no help in deciding
the issue either way. Whoever dredged it up did so hoping that no one would
bother to check the facts.


In other words, not only was the Happersett case mooted and superseded by
Ark; not only was the passage you quoted dicta, and therefore not
precedential; but the Court said it so many words, WE DON'T KNOW AND WE
DON'T CARE. g

It may seem to you that they didn't care. They didn't care so much that
they felt it necessary to make comment.
What it really says is 'if we were to make such a decision, here's how
we'd decide.'

Really? And what is it that you think they said they'd decide?


In the Wong Kim Ark case, the Court *did* know.

Yup, he's a citizen. Nothing more.

Here is what distinguishes it from Happersett, which, you'll recall, states
right in the decision that they aren't going to deal with it. In Wong, they
*did* deal with it. Here are some of the references called upon in the case,
taken directly from the Court's decision:

The Court in Wong quotes Dred Scott:

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the
language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be
acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used
in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this
country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred
citizenship to the place of birth."

And it quotes US v. Rhodes (1866):

"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."

And it quotes the Kent commentary:

"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the
King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not
aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United
States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute
declaration to the contrary."

And in addition to the quotes, it went into extensive analysis of the
English and US commentary on the principles of citizenship, including the
meaning of "natural-born."

So Happersett and Wong agree that the issue is left undecided by the
Constitution. They further agree that, as in many cases, the Court must
revert to English common law for an answer. At this point Happersett turns
away from this question and addresses the real issue of their case, but Wong
continues, quoting extensively from US and English precedent; recognized law
authorities; and "common understanding," the same basis on which the Court
recently decided the 2nd Amendment and, a few decades ago, the right of
privacy.

That's quite a load of precedent and argument. That's why the courts
wouldn't even hear the birther-nutbag cases against Obama. And now we *do*
have a definition of the term, as defined by statute, which went into effect
a couple of weeks before Obama was sworn into office. So it's all over for
those who agree he was born in Hawaii. The real loonies have had to turn
their guns elsewhere, now claiming that he wasn't born in Hawaii at all.
When that fails, they'll probably claim that he isn't human. g


Back to the drawing board for you, aarcuda.

Back to the wishing well for you Ed.

Here's wishing you well, too, aarcuda. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:34:11 +0000, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:55:21 -0600, aarcuda69062
wrote:



Don't want a new president, I want a legal president.


That's good, you got one. Now STFU.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Easy for a forigner to make that claim. Much harder for those directly
involved.

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost