The Man From Chicago ne (Hawaii)

[Diogenes]

"Look dude, I didn't write the rule."

You are evidently deluded enough to propound that the 1790 is all that controls, when Congress explicitly in the Constitution has the authority to pass different rules later.

You have an interesting view of Constitutional law. What other pieces of the 1789 document do you think can be changed by Congress? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Press? the Right to keep and bear arms?

If this stuff can be modified by statute, why bother with an Amendment process?

And they did.

Congress often passes laws which are ruled unconstitutional. When it gets challenged and taken to court, the laws get thrown out.

"but that doesn't change the meaning of the law. It is what it is. "

And it isn't what you need to be for your squawking to have any relevance.

Not sure what you are trying to say. I'm simply pointing out the actual facts about Article II eligibility. Do you (like ladajo) have a personal dog in this fight?

[Diogenes]

"I hate to point out the irony, but under the law prior to 1920, you would have been considered a "natural born citizen" because the Mother Automatically became a citizen upon marriage to an American male. It is with some amusement that I notice your defense of the very right of women which deprives you of this status."

I don't think there should be any such thing a controlled substance, prohibition is bad, m'kay?

But what you're using needs a warning label.

Can't beat my argument so you insinuate i'm high on a narcotic? I would have expected better than that, but ad hominem has become all too common even in this place of supposedly elevated thinkers.

[TDPerk]

"Can't beat my argument so you insinuate i'm high on a narcotic?"

Beat it? It's been repetitively destroyed.

I'm saying you're being stoned is as good an explanation as any for the deranged arguments you've made.

"You have an interesting view of Constitutional law. What other pieces of the 1789 document do you think can be changed by Congress? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Press? the Right to keep and bear arms?

If this stuff can be modified by statute, why bother with an Amendment process? "

The Constitution cannot be modified by statute, any such legislation is null and void. I have said and you cannot and will not make any quote of me which contradicts that.

This has no bearing on the fact that any newer legislation which does not contradict the constitution can completely override and make null and void other older legislation.

For example, the fact that the Congress is allowed to pass excise taxes on alcohol--a power granted in the constitution and since exercised in legislation which does just that, and legislation of long standing at that--does not mean all such perfectly constitutional taxes cannot be repealed tomorrow.

[TDPerk]

In short Diogenes, your arguments are circular and conclusory--not based on the evidence, not either the text of the constitution, statues old and new, and not on any recognizable principles of constitutional law.

You are clinging--bitterly, ironically enough--to a view of the constitution which even you admit would have done nothing to prevent the election of Obama, and which you have admitted would be as likely to permit the election of someone who is quite alien to the predominate American culture and who is devoted to its destruction--Obama--as it is to prevent the election of a person who has a perfect faith in and an unswerving allegiance to the nation.

Your incoherence is vast, odious, and obvious.

[Diogenes]

"Can't beat my argument so you insinuate i'm high on a narcotic?"

Beat it? It's been repetitively destroyed.

Thank you for that summation Bagdad bob. Of COURSE there are no tanks in the street.

I'm saying you're being stoned is as good an explanation as any for the deranged arguments you've made.

Drugged up and Crazy is no way to go through life son. Deranged Arguments? That divided allegiance is explicitly what Article II was created for? Yeah, that's just crazy talk.

"You have an interesting view of Constitutional law. What other pieces of the 1789 document do you think can be changed by Congress? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Press? the Right to keep and bear arms?

If this stuff can be modified by statute, why bother with an Amendment process? "

The Constitution cannot be modified by statute, any such legislation is null and void. I have said and you cannot and will not make any quote of me which contradicts that.

This has no bearing on the fact that any newer legislation which does not contradict the constitution can completely override and make null and void other older legislation.

For example, the fact that the Congress is allowed to pass excise taxes on alcohol--a power granted in the constitution and since exercised in legislation which does just that, and legislation of long standing at that--does not mean all such perfectly constitutional taxes cannot be repealed tomorrow.

Oh, I see. Congress cannot change the constitution, but it can change the meaning of specific words IN the constitution! All they have to do is "REDEFINE" Natural born citizen to mean anyone, and Presto-Chango, anyone is eligible and they didn't have to Amend anything !

Wow! That's a neat trick! They could use it to redefine other terms like "Freedom of Speech", or the "Right to keep and Bear arms." What will they think of next?

[ladajo]

D,
As I see it you are trying to argue the constitutional law from a veiwpoint based in 1790. OK. But today is not 1790.

Sure, Women can pass on "Citizenship", but they cannot pass on "Natural Born Citizen" status without an American Father. Nowadays, An American father cannot pass on "Natural born citizen" status without an American Mother. The defining rule is divided allegiance. We are not supposed to tolerate it.

What do you base this on? 1920? If so, that is no longer in effect.

In Rogers v. Bellei, the Supreme Court did in fact look into the case as an Article 2 issue, and it was so argued, as well as the current state of affairs, from 1971. The conclusion they reached, was based on a review of Article 2, Powers deliniated by the Constitution, and as a result of those powers, and follow on Amendments, the Constitutionality of the issue. In the case at hand, although Bellei lost, as he did not meet criteria for citizenship, the Supreme Court layed out a fair and comprehensive, MODERN DAY interpretation of Citizenship, Natural Born Citizenship, and equality.

Regardless of my position, (and thanks for your vote), it is the reasonable modern day interpretation, that still meets foudners intent. An intent based on "Allegience", on which I fully agree with you.

[Diogenes]

In short Diogenes, your arguments are circular and conclusory--not based on the evidence, not either the text of the constitution, statues old and new, and not on any recognizable principles of constitutional law.

You must be reading different words than i'm writing. I have completely chopped your arguments into giblet meat. You have yet to respond in ANY meaningful way. Even Ladajo's court arguments have been better than yours, though not a single one of them deals with eligibility.

You are clinging--bitterly, ironically enough--to a view of the constitution which even you admit would have done nothing to prevent the election of Obama,

Excuse me? My view is that he is not Eligible until he proves that he is eligible. The only thing he's offered as proof is a picture of a copy of whatever they put into the record in Hawaii, and THAT only says his father is not an American, and therefore PROVES he isn't even eligible. If I believed it, I would say he cannot legally serve in that office.

and which you have admitted would be as likely to permit the election of someone who is quite alien to the predominate American culture and who is devoted to its destruction--Obama--as it is to prevent the election of a person who has a perfect faith in and an unswerving allegiance to the nation.

Your incoherence is vast, odious, and obvious.

Now your verbiage has just become silly. Whether the constitution permits the election of an American hating American is irrelevant to the fact that the rules are what they are. I am beginning to perceive that you lack the wherewithal to comprehend this subject. I wonder if you have a personal reason for being so obtuse.

Were both your parents American Citizens when you were born?

[Diogenes]

D,
As I see it you are trying to argue the constitutional law from a veiwpoint based in 1790. OK. But today is not 1790.

It's a thing called "Original Intent." It is a bedrock principle of Conservative Philosophy. The intended purpose of Article II is to prevent a President of divided allegiance. Constitutional provisions remain in effect till repealed or amended, no matter how old they are.

Sure, Women can pass on "Citizenship", but they cannot pass on "Natural Born Citizen" status without an American Father. Nowadays, An American father cannot pass on "Natural born citizen" status without an American Mother. The defining rule is divided allegiance. We are not supposed to tolerate it.

What do you base this on? 1920? If so, that is no longer in effect.

The system of Automatic American Citizenship for women who married American men was changed in the 1920s, mainly because of the after effects of the 19th amendment. As a result, foreign Women AND Men would retain their foreign citizenship unless they actively naturalized. The offspring of such unions would be citizens, (So would offspring born in a foreign country to a single American Parent) but they wouldn't meet the threshold requirement of Article II, which was No divided allegiance.

Had they decided the marriage to an American Woman granted automatic citizenship to her foreign Husband, THAT would have been the equivalent of what the standard was for men previously. They did not do this.

In Rogers v. Bellei, the Supreme Court did in fact look into the case as an Article 2 issue, and it was so argued, as well as the current state of affairs, from 1971. The conclusion they reached, was based on a review of Article 2, Powers deliniated by the Constitution, and as a result of those powers, and follow on Amendments, the Constitutionality of the issue. In the case at hand, although Bellei lost, as he did not meet criteria for citizenship, the Supreme Court layed out a fair and comprehensive, MODERN DAY interpretation of Citizenship, Natural Born Citizenship, and equality.

I wouldn't be crowing about any ruling that had Harry Blackmun in the majority. I haven't read through the decision enough to find any reference to Article II, (I WILL do this, but I don't have time right now.) but I did read through it far enough to discover this important tidbit.

They ruled against Bellei because he hadn't met residency requirements. It mentions in the decision that Natural Born Citizens do not have to meet any residency requirements, and that congress CAN NOT take away their citizenship. Ipso Facto Bellei was not the same status as a "natural born citizen."

As his citizenship was granted by an act of congress, it could be taken away by not following the requirements of the act of congress. NBC citizenship cannot be taken away at all. See the difference?

Regardless of my position, (and thanks for your vote), it is the reasonable modern day interpretation, that still meets foudners intent. An intent based on "Allegience", on which I fully agree with you.

I'm not sure you realize the significance of Bellei. His citizenship was REVOKED because he didn't meet the requirement that a NBC doesn't have to meet. I'm not sure you are better off with this "Modern" interpretation. Automatic non-revokable citizenship through an American Father looks a whole lot more secure to me. I don't think you did your argument any good service by pointing out this case.

[MSimon]

Automatic non-revokable citizenship through an American Father looks a whole lot more secure to me.

Only if DNA testing proves paternity. Otherwise we just have the woman's word.

[ladajo]

They ruled against Bellei because he hadn't met residency requirements. It mentions in the decision that Natural Born Citizens do not have to meet any residency requirements, and that congress CAN NOT take away their citizenship. Ipso Facto Bellei was not the same status as a "natural born citizen."

I did note the irony that Bellei lost in my original postings. I also pointed out that his loss was not what mattered. What mattered was the clarifications provided by the Court in the decisions argument. They did a good job pulling all the relevant points together.

Please also do not forget, that the point of the Constitution is its ability to adapt over time, as it has done so many times. Both for positive and negative. It also has the ability to correct previous errors. In the case of citizenship, as I said, I do agree with your point about original intent regarding divided loyalty, I also think that the issue is provided for in current context, and this is the reason that Bellei lost. He did not demonstrate loyalty.

[Diogenes]

They ruled against Bellei because he hadn't met residency requirements. It mentions in the decision that Natural Born Citizens do not have to meet any residency requirements, and that congress CAN NOT take away their citizenship. Ipso Facto Bellei was not the same status as a "natural born citizen."

I did note the irony that Bellei lost in my original postings. I also pointed out that his loss was not what mattered. What mattered was the clarifications provided by the Court in the decisions argument. They did a good job pulling all the relevant points together.

Please also do not forget, that the point of the Constitution is its ability to adapt over time, as it has done so many times. Both for positive and negative. It also has the ability to correct previous errors. In the case of citizenship, as I said, I do agree with your point about original intent regarding divided loyalty, I also think that the issue is provided for in current context, and this is the reason that Bellei lost. He did not demonstrate loyalty.

Not showing up for his induction was what triggered it all I think. But the point remains, a single American Parent is not enough to prevent your citizenship from being taken away.

A Natural Born Citizen's citizenship CANNOT be taken away.

[Diogenes]

Automatic non-revokable citizenship through an American Father looks a whole lot more secure to me.

Only if DNA testing proves paternity. Otherwise we just have the woman's word.

Amen to that. English/American law has always regarded the husband as the father, because during most of history there was no way to tell if it was his child or not. Now there is.

[ladajo]

They ruled against Bellei because he hadn't met residency requirements. It mentions in the decision that Natural Born Citizens do not have to meet any residency requirements, and that congress CAN NOT take away their citizenship. Ipso Facto Bellei was not the same status as a "natural born citizen."

I did note the irony that Bellei lost in my original postings. I also pointed out that his loss was not what mattered. What mattered was the clarifications provided by the Court in the decisions argument. They did a good job pulling all the relevant points together.

Please also do not forget, that the point of the Constitution is its ability to adapt over time, as it has done so many times. Both for positive and negative. It also has the ability to correct previous errors. In the case of citizenship, as I said, I do agree with your point about original intent regarding divided loyalty, I also think that the issue is provided for in current context, and this is the reason that Bellei lost. He did not demonstrate loyalty.

Not showing up for his induction was what triggered it all I think. But the point remains, a single American Parent is not enough to prevent your citizenship from being taken away.

A Natural Born Citizen's citizenship CANNOT be taken away.

Well, what about Traitors and Felons?

In any event, Bellei wanted to keep his citizenship, but not get drafted based on mandatory service in Italy. But again, the case revolved around his showing no real connection with the US. And again, the Court's review of historical and contemporary references was well done, and IMO argues that a single American parent, meeting residency, counts as a Natural Born child. You have got to draw the line somewhere, and they did. Bellei demonstrated no will or purpose to maintain his citizenship other than convenience, and in addition, demonstrated allegience to another country by voluntarily spending his life there as a citizen, thus they revoked the US rights (and rightly so).

[Diogenes]

I did note the irony that Bellei lost in my original postings. I also pointed out that his loss was not what mattered. What mattered was the clarifications provided by the Court in the decisions argument. They did a good job pulling all the relevant points together.

Please also do not forget, that the point of the Constitution is its ability to adapt over time, as it has done so many times. Both for positive and negative. It also has the ability to correct previous errors. In the case of citizenship, as I said, I do agree with your point about original intent regarding divided loyalty, I also think that the issue is provided for in current context, and this is the reason that Bellei lost. He did not demonstrate loyalty.

Not showing up for his induction was what triggered it all I think. But the point remains, a single American Parent is not enough to prevent your citizenship from being taken away.

A Natural Born Citizen's citizenship CANNOT be taken away.

Well, what about Traitors and Felons?

In any event, Bellei wanted to keep his citizenship, but not get drafted based on mandatory service in Italy. But again, the case revolved around his showing no real connection with the US. And again, the Court's review of historical and contemporary references was well done, and IMO argues that a single American parent, meeting residency, counts as a Natural Born child. You have got to draw the line somewhere, and they did. Bellei demonstrated no will or purpose to maintain his citizenship other than convenience, and in addition, demonstrated allegience to another country by voluntarily spending his life there as a citizen, thus they revoked the US rights (and rightly so).

But I cannot emphasize this particular point enough. A Natural Born Citizen could move to Italy and stay there for the rest of his life and NOT lose his citizenship. (provided he did not renounce or commit a treason. Felonies don't matter.)

You cannot argue that they are the same if one is more secure than the other. At the very least you have to grant me that.

[Diogenes]

Reading through the Bellei decision I came across this bit from the Supreme Court.

That it is not an absolute is demonstrated by the fact that even Fourteenth Amendment citizenship by naturalization, when unlawfully procured, may be set aside. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 267 n. 23.

Seems like this covers "Anchor Babies."