Thread: 3 Separate Ballot Access Challenges Against Obama Filed And Pending In Illinois

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

What the fuck ever white duder.
You're not the first dumbass that has graced PH with your pretentious bullshit.

Why such animosity? On the other hand, let us see who the true dumb ass is since you seem to assume I am one. I challenge you to discuss with me your knowledge (if any) of Minor v Happersett and these ballot access challenges being filed across the United States. Are you confident and able?

Originally Posted by I Know These Things

Why such animosity? On the other hand, let us see who the true dumb ass is since you seem to assume I am one. I challenge you to discuss with me your knowledge (if any) of Minor v Happersett and these ballot access challenges being filed across the United States. Are you confident and able to?

In a birthers mind from what we have all seen over the last three years is not a single thing is relevant except the one final key piece of information they think finally proves that they are not a pack of loons.
That is the case in this thread as well. Is it not?

Originally Posted by I Know These Things

First of all. Obama's father was not permanently domiciled here in the U.S. like Arks parents. He was a transient student with no intentions to live in the U.S. and that makes a HUGE difference.

Wrong again. Wong Kim Ark's parents were, in fact Chinese subjects, and not "permanent residents" of the United States, as we understand the term today. In fact, the first time Ark departed the US, was to assist his parents in their return to China. It was his second trip to visit family in China, when he was refused re-entry into the States, because of the claim that he was not a US Citizen.

Now, there are some 40 instances of the phrase “natural-born citizen” in Wong Kim Ark v United States, and of course the whole point of that decision is that the US-born son of 2 Chinese immigrants has full US citizenship by birth.

The question was never really solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons alive that were born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.

Originally Posted by I Know These Things

Ark was never considered a Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen unlike Minor who was. Minor was a voting rights case, yes. However, to reach a decision on suffrage the citizenship issue had to be settled. They used Article 2 Section 1 to avoid the 14th, and therefore used this as independent grounds.The Court in Ark cited Minor and agreed that the term 'natural-born citizen' was not defined anywhere in the Constitution. Minor and Ark were both AFTER the passage of 14A. Logically then, the 14th doesn't define a Article 2 Section 1 'natural-born citizen'. Minor is binding precedent. It takes both parents being US citizens along with being born in country to be a natural-born citizen.

You must really enjoy being wrong, seeing as you find yourself in that condition so often

They didn't avoid the 14th amendment at all, so much as simply ignored it. Why? because, since Minor was obviously a natural born US Citizen, having been born in this country to two parents who were themselves natural born citizens, the main question before the court was, can a citizen of the US be denied the opportunity to vote? The answer of the day, of course, was that they could be denied that opportunity.

Minor did nothing to settle law as to whom was a natural born citizen, and would not be settled until Wong Kim Ark, who was declared to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th. It doesn't get any more basic, nor any more clear than that.

Originally Posted by NiteGuy

.

Minor did nothing to settle law as to whom was a natural born citizen, and would not be settled until Wong Kim Ark, who was declared to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th. It doesn't get any more basic, nor any more clear than that.

Please show me where Wong was declared the term 'Natural Born Citizen'. I don't recall him being affirmed those precise words and also show me where the term 'natural born citizen' is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. It seems Minor v Happersett set binding president the more I read it. You must remember the only class of natural-born citizens for Article 2 Section 1 purposes are those born in the US to parents who are citizens. The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not expand the class of natural-born citizens defined in Minor. The simplest way to put it is this, if Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue.