For those of you screaming for case law in pnwmom's thread

[WolverineDG]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7909879

Did ya ever think to check out Wiki???

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship, generally

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born Citizen," they have occasionally considered the matter in passing.

* Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
* Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."

wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

dg

[Sugarcoated]

1. Kick

[woolldog]

2. I don't want the caselaw

I just want to know what exactly is the ruling that's being appealed?

Is the issue on appeal, Donofrio's legal standing to bring this claim? Or is it the claim itself that the lower courts have rejected?

That's all I'd like to know. pnwmom's hysteria is ridiculous.

[TexasObserver]

4. If I thought this case mattered, I'd be all over, but I don't, so I'm not.

This case is such bullshit, I doubt it will ever be considered more than an inane triviality.

If it makes it to mainstream news and draws interest, I'll pay attention to it.

Clarence Thomas could end up the first Supreme Court justice impeached and removed from office, however. He's a complete idiot when it comes to the law. He doesn't have enough sense to work for an insurance company as a staff attorney.

[WolverineDG]

5. well at least one other poster on that thread kept demanding case law

I notice they haven't made an appearance on this thread.

dg

[TexasObserver]

6. I'm glad you posted those cases. As I said, agree on the law point.

[WolverineDG]

11. thanks nt

[TexasObserver]

3. Which reminds me of that Dana Carvey restaurant skit on SNL.

"You lika de juice? Juice is good!"


Ok, it's not exactly the same pronunciation as "jus," but close enough.


As for the law point, yeah.

[crispini]

7. Kick

[WolverineDG]

9. thanks crispy

lovesya! :loveya: :fistbump:

dg

[crispini]

10. Hey!

:fistbump:

I have to admit, I worried about that case for about 2 minutes, until I thought about it, and went, "Nah." It has, however, made for an interesting argument, and I'm sure the Freepers are just creaming their jeans over the whole thing.

[verdalaven]

8. A kick

[tsuki]

12. Clarence Thomas is an idiot. nt

[No Elephants]

13. Be careful to distinguish cases about citizenship from cases about being a "natural born citizen"

within the meaning of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, Congress gets to decide about naturalization. Only the Supreme Court of the United States, however, can decide what "natural born citizen" means for purposes of determining whether an individual qualifies to be President.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the precise question. The remarks of the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott case are relevant, though not binding for the purpose of qualifying a President. However, what the court is saying in that case is that place of birth has always been generally understood to confer citizenship.

In other words, for those screaming for case law, there is none. The SCOTUS has no binding precedent on this precise issue (what "natural born citizen" means for purposes of qualifying a person for the Presidency), but the quote from the Dred Scott case states a very relevant historical fact that woould guide the SCOTUS in determining what the Framers meant by the term.