Comment: You are truly the pot calling

(See in situ)


You are truly the pot calling

You are truly the pot calling the kettle black! You are the one who keeps spouting false statements and claiming they are true and then accusing me of doing exactly what you do. It's called projection. Stop it! As for your statement 2. you assert the following:

"MvH, in the opinion, explicitly states that the full definition of NBC has never been defined and that this decision does not define it."

Your assertion is just plain wrong and the opposite of what the Court clearly said. Where does it state that NBC has never been defined? It doesn't! On the contrary, it defines as NBC "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". Let's review the salient language of the Court's ruling:

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 'all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens' became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

With this language the Court defined natives or NBCs as "CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS. PERIOD! And of course as NBCs, they were clearly and undoubtedly CITIZENS. In their decision, they equate the term "natives" with NBCs, but "natives" in this context logically cannot be identical to "native born" citizens unless, of course, these "native born" citizens are born to citizen parents.

The Court ruling continues: "Some authorities go further and INCLUDE AS CITIZENS children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to THIS CLASS there have been DOUBTS, but never as the FIRST." So "children born within the jurisdiction WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS" may or not, depending on the authoritIes, be WHAT??? BE INCLUDED AS CITIZENS!!! NOT be included as NBCs!!! which would, of course, depend on the citizenship of their parents.

And once more, to make it crystal clear, the Court notes: "As to THIS CLASS there have been DOUBTS, but never as to the FIRST." What is "this class"? From the simple construction of the English language, it is clearly those "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents".

And what is the FIRST class? Clearly "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens", ie. NBCs. And what were the DOUBTS about? Clearly, whether or not "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" would be included AS CITIZENS, not whether or not they should be included as NBCs, which the Court had already described and defined as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

Maybe you just don't like the Supreme Court's ruling in the Minor case defining NBCs as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". In that case, you won't like the Supreme Courts adoption of this definition of NBC in its earlier cases, namely The Venus (1814), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Dred Scott (1857), nor in later cases in which they adopted Minor's NBC definition in Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg. (1939). Fine, say so! You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to lie about the facts or the finding of the case.

In your statement 2, you claim "They picked Jay's phrase over Hamilton's because they preferred the shorter phrase." Your joking, right? Jay's phrase, "natural born citizen" (NBC) was shorter than Hamilton's "born a citizen"? And the founders used NBC, which term was defined in Vattel's 1758 treatise "The Law of Nations" as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens", rather than "born a citizen" BUT THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME MEANING?? You gotta be kidding? Do you actually read the nonsense you post?

By the way, as to the false statements that you accuse me of making, you never seem to actually address them specifically. Instead, you simply throw mud at the wall with ad hominem attacks, hoping some of it will stick, and then make your own points without grounding them in reliable Court rulings, legal authority or good logic. You are good at disparaging and confusing but not good at clarifying or educating.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?