HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Lounge > The lounge


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2020, 04:04 PM   #211
Eddies66
VIP Member
 
Eddies66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rancho Mirage, CA
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 282
Liked 794 Times in 383 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone View Post
Herefore Minor was a NBC...KH is not.

Did you even read the whole case, even if Minor was born on US soil she is still a "natural born citizen". The Court compared both circumstances...quit reading what you want that fits your agenda and hell with the rest. Do you have a clue what "critical thinking" is? Of the soil, Mark, of the soil.

Last edited by Eddies66; 08-14-2020 at 07:04 PM.
Eddies66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2020, 10:08 PM   #212
Mark Yacavone
Veteran Member
 
Mark Yacavone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miles From Nowhere
Posts: 7,393
Likes: 2,563
Liked 4,421 Times in 1,683 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddies66 View Post
Did you even read the whole case, even if Minor was born on US soil she is still a "natural born citizen". The Court compared both circumstances...quit reading what you want that fits your agenda and hell with the rest. Do you have a clue what "critical thinking" is? Of the soil, Mark, of the soil.

This is supposed to be your " critical thinking" determining factor?

"The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"

Funny stuff
__________________
We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for..... Will Rogers
Mark Yacavone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2020, 10:15 PM   #213
Mark Yacavone
Veteran Member
 
Mark Yacavone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miles From Nowhere
Posts: 7,393
Likes: 2,563
Liked 4,421 Times in 1,683 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

Source: http://www.aulawreview.org/natural-born-citizen/


There are two leading views of the original meaning of the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility. The first, espoused most recently by Professors Einer Elhauge and Mary Brigid McManamon, is that a natural born citizen who is eligible to be President is any person born within the United States, unless the person is the child of a foreign ambassador or enemy soldier.[7] By the same token, any person born outside of the United States to a U.S. ambassador or to a U.S. soldier in a hostile army would also be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.[8] The idea that membership in a polity is determined principally by birthplace is known by the Latinism jus soli—the “law of soil.”[9] Proponents of this view assert that jus soli was the common law of England as to who was a “natural born subject,” and that the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement for presidential eligibility adopted the same English meaning.[10]

This viewpoint is wrong on both counts: jus soli was not the exclusive rule at English common law, and the English common law of natural born subjectship was not the exclusive source of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. “Common law” in this context means the evolving customary law of England as reflected not only in judicial decisions, but also in landmark statutes. Further, early Americans also consulted treatises summarizing English law, most importantly William Blackstone’s Commentaries.[11]

First, jus soli may have been the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law before the Norman conquest of 1066, but it was not the sole principle of natural born subjectship at English common law when the U.S. Constitution was adopted centuries later. As historian James Kettner put it, “English jurists had no conscious attachment to the jus soli . . . . Ancestry could also determine who was a ‘natural-born subject.’”[12] In fact, starting in 1350, Parliament passed statutes bestowing subject status upon the foreign-born children of English subjects, thereby invoking the other great Western natural law birthright principle, jus sanguinis—the “law of blood” or parentage.[13] Jus sanguinis was the Roman rule of citizenship, and it was long dominant on the European continent with its shifting borders and overlapping allegiances.[14] But, jus sanguinis penetrated England and then Great Britain, especially in its eighteenth-century mercantilist phase, by which time Parliament had long extended “natural born” status to the foreign-born children of British subjects in government service and of British fathers generally.[15] Some of the most settled of these statutes, by virtue of their ancient and uncontroversial status, had become part of the common law tradition, not departures from it. However, descent by parentage had a gender skew under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.[16]

Second, although English common law was the principal source of U.S. constitutional law, it was not the only source. The common law was the taproot of U.S. constitutional provisions with an English pedigree like habeas corpus and the criminal and civil jury trial rights, but early Americans did not reflexively adopt the British law of natural born subjects in defining who was a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. The British Empire had “subjects” whose allegiance to the Crown was viewed as analogous to a child’s obeisance to a parent, a bond the Americans had fought to escape.[17] “Citizens” of the American republic, by contrast, were seen as bound by explicit or implicit consent to a society of equals, analogous to a social contract.[18] The ramifications of this political-theory distinction between subject and citizen for “natural born” status are underappreciated. The concept of citizenship that Americans embraced attributed greater independence and agency to individuals to pass on their political allegiance, by contrast to subjectship which presumed that allegiance was solely a function of birth within the sovereign’s domains.
__________________
We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for..... Will Rogers
Mark Yacavone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2020, 08:40 AM   #214
Eddies66
VIP Member
 
Eddies66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rancho Mirage, CA
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 282
Liked 794 Times in 383 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone View Post
Source: http://www.aulawreview.org/natural-born-citizen/


There are two leading views of the original meaning of the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility. The first, espoused most recently by Professors Einer Elhauge and Mary Brigid McManamon, is that a natural born citizen who is eligible to be President is any person born within the United States, unless the person is the child of a foreign ambassador or enemy soldier.[7] By the same token, any person born outside of the United States to a U.S. ambassador or to a U.S. soldier in a hostile army would also be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.[8] The idea that membership in a polity is determined principally by birthplace is known by the Latinism jus soli—the “law of soil.”[9] Proponents of this view assert that jus soli was the common law of England as to who was a “natural born subject,” and that the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement for presidential eligibility adopted the same English meaning.[10]

This viewpoint is wrong on both counts: jus soli was not the exclusive rule at English common law, and the English common law of natural born subjectship was not the exclusive source of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. “Common law” in this context means the evolving customary law of England as reflected not only in judicial decisions, but also in landmark statutes. Further, early Americans also consulted treatises summarizing English law, most importantly William Blackstone’s Commentaries.[11]

First, jus soli may have been the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law before the Norman conquest of 1066, but it was not the sole principle of natural born subjectship at English common law when the U.S. Constitution was adopted centuries later. As historian James Kettner put it, “English jurists had no conscious attachment to the jus soli . . . . Ancestry could also determine who was a ‘natural-born subject.’”[12] In fact, starting in 1350, Parliament passed statutes bestowing subject status upon the foreign-born children of English subjects, thereby invoking the other great Western natural law birthright principle, jus sanguinis—the “law of blood” or parentage.[13] Jus sanguinis was the Roman rule of citizenship, and it was long dominant on the European continent with its shifting borders and overlapping allegiances.[14] But, jus sanguinis penetrated England and then Great Britain, especially in its eighteenth-century mercantilist phase, by which time Parliament had long extended “natural born” status to the foreign-born children of British subjects in government service and of British fathers generally.[15] Some of the most settled of these statutes, by virtue of their ancient and uncontroversial status, had become part of the common law tradition, not departures from it. However, descent by parentage had a gender skew under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.[16]

Second, although English common law was the principal source of U.S. constitutional law, it was not the only source. The common law was the taproot of U.S. constitutional provisions with an English pedigree like habeas corpus and the criminal and civil jury trial rights, but early Americans did not reflexively adopt the British law of natural born subjects in defining who was a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. The British Empire had “subjects” whose allegiance to the Crown was viewed as analogous to a child’s obeisance to a parent, a bond the Americans had fought to escape.[17] “Citizens” of the American republic, by contrast, were seen as bound by explicit or implicit consent to a society of equals, analogous to a social contract.[18] The ramifications of this political-theory distinction between subject and citizen for “natural born” status are underappreciated. The concept of citizenship that Americans embraced attributed greater independence and agency to individuals to pass on their political allegiance, by contrast to subjectship which presumed that allegiance was solely a function of birth within the sovereign’s domains.

Again you fail to read all of the article, the author concludes that: "My findings on the original meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause reveal that it was not grounded exclusively on jus soli or jus sanguinis, but rather incorporated both natural law principles." Of the soil, Mark, of the soil.
Eddies66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked
Old 08-15-2020, 08:47 AM   #215
Eddies66
VIP Member
 
Eddies66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rancho Mirage, CA
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 282
Liked 794 Times in 383 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

In addition, with regards to your opinions on Obama, the author of your finding states that: "From a present-day perspective, the greatest misgivings about implementing the original meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause arise from the blatant sexism of the natural law principle of jus sanguinis. Even in the twentieth century when natural law had receded as a wellspring of citizenship jurisprudence and long after the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause had been adopted, American laws proceeded on the assumption that children inherited the citizenship status of their fathers, not their mothers. Indeed, in many states, courts hewed to the view that married women (not just children) acquired the citizenship or domicile status of their husbands well into the twentieth century. But those sexist doctrines and laws have been retired for decades now." Not only was Obama born to a mother that was a US citizen (of the blood) but was born in Hawaii (of the soil).
Eddies66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked
Old 08-15-2020, 11:56 AM   #216
Mark Yacavone
Veteran Member
 
Mark Yacavone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miles From Nowhere
Posts: 7,393
Likes: 2,563
Liked 4,421 Times in 1,683 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

Eddie, I agree to one thing you said. NBC has not been adjudicated specifically, through the Supreme Court
Therefore it's pointless for us to debated here. You've got news and TV people throwing out terms that don't have clue what they're talking about., then stating it as fact. It now becomes a matter of opinion what the forefathers and writers meant by NBC.

I believe they had a higher standard ,after the Revolutionary War, than having a foreign entity to be able to plop down a kid on US soil, and then ,after 35 years , that kid could be POTUS. You and many other , apparently , do not.
We are going to have to wait and watch until someone with standing, sees this issue through the courts.
Last words? (maybe)
__________________
We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for..... Will Rogers
Mark Yacavone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2020, 03:09 PM   #217
Eddies66
VIP Member
 
Eddies66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rancho Mirage, CA
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 282
Liked 794 Times in 383 Posts
Default Re: Bandimere shut down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone View Post
Eddie, I agree to one thing you said. NBC has not been adjudicated specifically, through the Supreme Court
Therefore it's pointless for us to debated here. You've got news and TV people throwing out terms that don't have clue what they're talking about., then stating it as fact. It now becomes a matter of opinion what the forefathers and writers meant by NBC.

I believe they had a higher standard ,after the Revolutionary War, than having a foreign entity to be able to plop down a kid on US soil, and then ,after 35 years , that kid could be POTUS. You and many other , apparently , do not.
We are going to have to wait and watch until someone with standing, sees this issue through the courts.
Last words? (maybe)

Mark, I believe that Dr. Lee summed it by stating in his conclusion that: "Words, after all, are only as perfect as their creators, and so is our written Constitution."


Fair winds and following seas to you Mark, the movers will arrive tomorrow and I am not looking forward to my third 9 hour trip. Regards
Eddies66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.