|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 17, 2020 9:48:14 GMT
The proper interpretation of court opinions are what they state in the majority/plurality decisions, not what you wish for them to say. I’ve already given an outline of what they said and articles from Newsweek and blogs from Heritage/Federalist won’t change that. Don’t like it? Try adding an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Until then, you are wrong. Your cherry picking in no way diminishes the fact based conclusions put forward by John Eastman, who without a doubt demonstrates far more expertise on this matter than you could ever hope to attain. Until you post something that gives an objective interpretation, I'm afraid that I'm not wrong. Pretty sure a Supreme Court case is not cherry picking. Nor is the U.S. Constitution. That’s called the actual law of the land and its interpretation from the highest authority. It certainly holds vast more validity than your opinion articles from Republican hacks. Eastman showed he was clueless about constitutional law and was rightly blasted for it. You have shown similar cluelessness. Keep digging. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 13:16:45 GMT
Your cherry picking in no way diminishes the fact based conclusions put forward by John Eastman, who without a doubt demonstrates far more expertise on this matter than you could ever hope to attain. Until you post something that gives an objective interpretation, I'm afraid that I'm not wrong. Pretty sure a Supreme Court case is not cherry picking. Nor is the U.S. Constitution. That’s called the actual law of the land and its interpretation from the highest authority. It certainly holds vast more validity than your opinion articles from Republican hacks. Eastman showed he was clueless about constitutional law and was rightly blasted for it. You have shown similar cluelessness. Keep digging. Eastman's arguments are based both on the Constitution and the Wong SCOTUS decision, and unlike you, he gets those details right. How did you miss that? It's telling that you consider SCOTUS to be the "highest authority" when constitutionally, that's not valid. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that this judicial oligarchy was to lord over the other branches of government. There's not even an explicit article that even allows judicial review; it's an "implied" right usurped by the courts. We've allowed that perversion to stand rather than challenge the notion that only one branch is allowed to judge constitutionality. |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 17, 2020 21:47:34 GMT
Pretty sure a Supreme Court case is not cherry picking. Nor is the U.S. Constitution. That’s called the actual law of the land and its interpretation from the highest authority. It certainly holds vast more validity than your opinion articles from Republican hacks. Eastman showed he was clueless about constitutional law and was rightly blasted for it. You have shown similar cluelessness. Keep digging. Eastman's arguments are based both on the Constitution and the Wong SCOTUS decision, and unlike you, he gets those details right. How did you miss that? It's telling that you consider SCOTUS to be the "highest authority" when constitutionally, that's not valid. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that this judicial oligarchy was to lord over the other branches of government. There's not even an explicit article that even allows judicial review; it's an "implied" right usurped by the courts. We've allowed that perversion to stand rather than challenge the notion that only one branch is allowed to judge constitutionality.
Uh, I've already given an outline of the Wong ruling and their interpretation of what jurisdiction means. And it is different from Eastman's nonsense. But I've noticed you base everything on how you want things to be [Also known as wishful thinking], not based on how things actually are. You want to change it? Pass a constitutional amendment as I said before. Until then, quit crying.
And yes, the Supreme Court is the highest authority on interpretating the Constitution. Has been since the 1820s. Seeing how you are a Trumptard, I'm sure you would prefer if the Dear Leader just had control over everything as he has attempted to do.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 17, 2020 22:00:14 GMT
Only vermin and insects get under my skin....if you'd like to volunteer as one of those, I'm certainly not one to object. Lulz. Ok. I posted the link because a) I did all this research before and posted it on the old site which now defunct and b) I have more pressing things to do than redo all that research. But since you seem to have trouble using an index, I will point you to the debate beginning on p. 497. In particular a passage from Sen. Trumbell (p. 498), who said, "I understand that under the current naturalization law the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens." He was responding to Sen. Cowan's claim that the children of Chinese parents were not citizens. The debate goes for some pages after that (if you actually care to do some original research). |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 19, 2020 19:39:01 GMT
Is Paleo still grasping at straws and embarrassing himself on this issue? Like "Obamagate," most Trumptards have even moved on to the next shiny object.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 19, 2020 19:55:19 GMT
On page 2890, by Senator Howard:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
You seem to have missed (or ignored) those uncomfortable truths in your "original" research. Yeah, I missed or ignored that thing I specifically pointed you to (e.g., Cowan). There's isn't a eye-roll emoji sufficient enough to respond to that. But let's look at Howard's comments above. Those not subject to US jurisdiction are the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. This is in keeping with the common law concept of jus soli. Regarding the common law, there is this from Blackstone's Commentaries (with which the Founders were familiar): "Allegiance, both express and implied, is, however, distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.(m) For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time, too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude, which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature." ( Source) |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 19, 2020 19:58:30 GMT
On page 2890, by Senator Howard:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
You seem to have missed (or ignored) those uncomfortable truths in your "original" research. Yeah, I missed or ignored that thing I specifically pointed you to (e.g., Cowan). There's isn't a eye-roll emoji sufficient enough to respond to that. But let's look at Howard's comments above. Those not subject to US jurisdiction are the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. This is in keeping with the common law concept of jus soli. Regarding the common law, there is this from Blackstone's Commentaries (with which the Founders were familiar): "Allegiance, both express and implied, is, however, distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.(m) For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time, too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude, which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature." ( Source)
Which falls in line with what the Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark. That Paleo had no response to other than to say the court ruling wasn't valid [He apparently thinks he has more of an authority on what is valid than SCOTUS].
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 19, 2020 20:18:25 GMT
You have to ignore the comma after "aliens" to claim that he is just referring to "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". He was making a list, otherwise the phrase would not have been " who are foreigners, aliens, who belong..." No need for two "whos" if the "foreigners, aliens" referred to the subsequent passage. He's not making a list. It's foreigners or aliens WHO are families of diplomats. And that's very clear from the context of the debate. Whether it is - in your judgment - a good basis for citizenship has nothing to do with the understanding of jurisdiction during this period. This was the common law understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 19, 2020 20:32:12 GMT
Which falls in line with what the Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark. That Paleo had no response to other than to say the court ruling wasn't valid [He apparently thinks he has more of an authority on what is valid than SCOTUS].
Which shows that you aren't paying attention. Based on the debates during the passage of the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. But setting that aside, I have said that if Harris' parents were legal permanent residents (the standard set by Wong), she is a citizen. If her parents were not permanent residents, but simply here on student visas, she is not a citizen. That agrees with both the 14th and Wong.
Wong Kim Ark has been precedent since it was decided over 120 years ago and Jus Soli citizenship has been upheld since then by further court decisions. You can keep flailing and failing but you are still wrong.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 19, 2020 20:35:23 GMT
If you think so, I'd say you have an English comprehension problem. Read it again: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States". The presence of the first "who are" denotes separation and the comma after "aliens" does as well.... either refutes your claim or the entire sentence is nonsensical. It's not a list. Again, the context of the debate makes that plain. Also the context of the prior debates, which Howard makes reference to. And the common law understanding was also in statute (codified) as noted in the Trumbull quote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 13:14:15 GMT
It's not a list. Again, the context of the debate makes that plain. Also the context of the prior debates, which Howard makes reference to. Grammatically, it is a list, no matter how you parse it or claim context. Show us that context, if you'd like, but this quote is plainly written as a list and plainly separates "foreigners, aliens" from "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 20, 2020 13:52:45 GMT
Grammatically, it is a list, no matter how you parse it or claim context. Show us that context, if you'd like, but this quote is plainly written as a list and plainly separates "foreigners, aliens" from "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". You have the context. Read the debate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 14:17:25 GMT
Grammatically, it is a list, no matter how you parse it or claim context. Show us that context, if you'd like, but this quote is plainly written as a list and plainly separates "foreigners, aliens" from "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". You have the context. Read the debate. Already have. Where do you think the quotes in my previous post came from? Nothing there changes the meaning of the quote above. It's grammatically still a list and "foreigners, aliens" is still clearly separated from "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" by the prefix "who are" and a comma. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 20, 2020 16:51:18 GMT
Already have. Where do you think the quotes in my previous post came from? Nothing there changes the meaning of the quote above. It's grammatically still a list and "foreigners, aliens" is still clearly separated from "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" by the prefix "who are" and a comma. And English grammar/style didn't evolve from the 19th Century to today. /sarcasm Not only has our grammatical style evolved, you're reading a transcription of a speech. That's why the context is important. Especially the previous debates on citizenship which Howard refers to, and I pointed you to, where it shows what the citizenship law was at the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 20:22:53 GMT
Already have. Where do you think the quotes in my previous post came from? Nothing there changes the meaning of the quote above. It's grammatically still a list and "foreigners, aliens" is still clearly separated from "families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" by the prefix "who are" and a comma. And English grammar/style didn't evolve from the 19th Century to today. /sarcasm Not only has our grammatical style evolved, you're reading a transcription of a speech. That's why the context is important. Especially the previous debates on citizenship which Howard refers to, and I pointed you to, where it shows what the citizenship law was at the time. That excessively wide open existing law (born here=citizen) that Trumbull mentioned seems to be the reason that they were debating stronger, more restrictive language in the amendment. If the law was fine as it was, there would have been no need to debate rewording it for the amendment. THAT'S the context.
Howard was simply clarifying those new restrictions as a list in his quote above.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 20, 2020 20:54:34 GMT
Howard was simply clarifying those new restrictions as a list in his quote above. Howard specifically says he considers his amendment to be declaratory of what is already the law of the land. Here is the quote you previously cited: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
|
|
