User talk:Ke758374634
|
Regarding your edit to Natural-born-citizen clause
[edit]
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
[edit]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Natural-born-citizen clause. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, my source was the THIRD U.S. CONGRESS of 1795. You can't get a more "reliable source" then that, but I guess I did use copy written material with out permission. You have my apologies DD2K.
Look, we all know that when it comes to legal jargon that nothing is left to chance. And the term "Children of Citizens" would not apply to the singular. This is not mere interpretation. It is the way that it is legally written period. People like to pretend that the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 some how dismisses the First Congress of 1790. But even if that is so, it clearly states that no one whose father has never been a citizen can inherit citizenship. I don't know why Wikipedia fights these facts so vehemently. Perhaps they have a vested political interest in keeping factual knowledge suppressed. It is kind of funny how posts on Wikipedia where it is merely interpreted by the writer, it will stand as gospel if it is a left leaning stance. I know nothing I post no matter the source will be left intact on this web site. And when I do post, I will have the sources and their links, and I will write it in my own words. And it will still be removed.
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural = both parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.146.163 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's a complete misreading of the facts. Look, you're right about when you add something it will be removed. But it's because we do not accept original research, synthesis based on fringe conspiracies. The overwhelming non-fringe view is already in the article/s, and are reliably sourced. That's not going to change no matter how Birthers try to justify their conspiracy theories. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- You (or the source which you were quoting) omitted some crucially important words from the 1795 naturalization act. Section 3 says: "and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States". (Emphasis mine.) That is, the provision you cited was included in order to confer citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis) to foreign-born children of US citizens. The 1790 naturalization act contained similar phrasing. If you got this info second-hand from a source which failed to include this omitted phrase, you need to ask yourself why your second-hand source might have accidentally (or intentionally) misrepresented the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts in this fashion. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, if you are going to try and categorize me,get it right. "Birthers" are those who believe that Obama was not born in the U.S., they want a drivers license and do not quote the Constitution. That ain't me. And how is he opinion of SCOTUS a conspiracy theory? I guess "Minor v. Happersett (1874)" " U. S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)" "Perkins v. Elg's (1939)" never happened and SCOTUS never decided or was of the opinion in a case that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural) on two different occasions. But of course you will say that "opinion is dicta". I always thought the the opinion of SCOTUS was the law. And if wanting the truth is "fringe", then so be it. I mean after all, it's not like "natural born citizen" was placed in our constitution for a reason any ways. They just liked the way it sounded as it rolled off of the tongue. Nah, there was no purpose for it to mean any thing different then "citizen" or "neutralized citizen". Nah, those great thinking men who wrote our constitution more then likely didn't adopt "natural born citizen" from "natural born subject" from England thus explaining its origin. Nah, they just liked big phrases. Why of course they didn't place "natural born citizen" in our constitution to differentiate from other terminology and meanings,,,sure they didn't. pfft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.146.163 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- The concept of obiter dicta is well-established in US law. The reason why anything said about "natural born" citizenship in the Supreme Court cases you cited is considered to be dicta is that these cases were not dealing specifically with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Virginia Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and Marie Elg were not trying to run for President or Vice-President. Wong and Elg were trying to be recognized as US citizens (without regard to whether they were eligible to run for President or not); and while Minor's status as a US citizen was unquestioned, she was trying to claim a right to vote on the basis of her citizenship. If, as you believe, any or all of these cases establish a definitive interpretation of presidential eligibility, it should be simple to find confirmation of this connection in other court decisions citing these SCOTUS cases, or in law journals or other scholarly works discussing the subject — but, as far as I'm aware, no such confirmation has ever been found despite extensive searching (see the talk page, Talk:Minor v. Happersett, for lots more discussion on this issue). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, so they weren't specifically dealing with Article II in those cases. But yet they site "natural born citizen" and give definitions none the less yes? If so, were am I going wrong here? And if not, I guess you'll tell me. lol
P.S. Thanks for not slamming me as a conspiracy theorist or birther in that one. Though, in the posts before you refereed to those labels,,,, I was a bit of a condescending ass to you, so I guess I deserved it. (Sorry about that) I just want the truth man, and I am getting crap from all angles on this thing. I just don't understand how SCOTUS can make a ruling on some thing that may have nothing to do with NBC, but at the same time pretty much saying that the definition is as " born to two parents of U.S. citizenship" during the case. Wait,,,,, I a not a very smart man,,but I am guessing right now as I write this that that could be the opinion of only one or two SCOTUS judges. And not all of them. OK, I guess through that thought process it has not been defined. But once again, why was it even placed in the constitution in the first place if it has no meaning? Or if it means the same thing as "citizen" or "neutralized citizen" or some other terminology? Can you see where a simple man could get confused here? And once again, sorry about being an ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.146.163 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are falling into the trap (understandable, but still a trap) of assuming that every word of an opinion from SCOTUS or any other court is of equal weight. Comments (dicta) about non-essential side issues that are not strictly relevant to the central question(s) in a case are not entitled to the same weight (value as precedent) as the holdings in the case, because the court is assumed not to have expended the same degree of care in analysing the non-central side issues. To be sure, it is sometimes a matter of debate whether a given portion of a ruling constitutes "holdings" or "dicta" — but since the legal distinction between "natural-born" citizenship and any other sort of citizenship is really meaningless except when presidential eligibility is involved, any mention of "natural-born" vs. other citizenship in any case about any other question can pretty much certainly be understood as being a comment in passing, possibly persuasive, but definitely not demanding the full authority of a binding precedent.
- In the case of Minor v. Happersett, it is clear (at least to me) from the overall context that the SCOTUS justices were saying that, before they could proceed further, it needed to be established that Virginia Minor was in fact a US citizen; that everyone agreed that someone born in the US, to parents who were US citizens, was indisputably a US citizen; and since this very narrow scenario applied to Mrs. Minor, she was clearly a US citizen, and it was therefore unnecessary for the court to explore the citizenship issue in any greater depth than this, and they could proceed to the question of whether the fact that Mrs. Minor was a citizen automatically gave her the right to vote. The fact that US-born children of American parents were deemed (in the words of an English translation of Emerich de Vattel's work The Law of Nations) to be "natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" was mentioned in passing, but not as a key aspect of the ruling, because — as I pointed out before — Virginia Minor wasn't trying to run for President, she was trying to vote.
- As for what the Founding Fathers meant when they put the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, the best explanation I'm aware of is that this was a commonly understood "term of art" in the legal scholarship of the time — most likely meaning simply "citizen by birth" (i.e., someone who didn't need to be naturalized because he was natural born) — and they didn't include a definition because they didn't see any need to define a term that was well understood. Note, BTW, that the correct term here is "naturalized", not "neutralized". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- It may also be worth noting that the "Case or Controversy Clause" in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution has been understood, since the earliest days of the republic, to limit the federal courts (including SCOTUS) to deciding actual controversies that have already arisen and have not yet been resolved. Stated another way, SCOTUS cannot issue "advisory opinions" on hypothetical questions — and, in particular, nothing in a SCOTUS opinion can be treated as a definitive, binding precedent regarding the "natural born citizen" clause unless the specific case at hand is one that is dealing with presidential eligibility. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)