# The Tea Party is not socially conservative my ass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 11, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760 "2010-10-11T06:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 50
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/981 "2010-10-25T12:07:23Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > I posted video of Barry saying all of those things. You people asked me to prove what I was saying, I did, and now you’re having a hissy fit over it. Which “Berry” are you talking about-this nonexistent “Soetoro”, or your President Obama? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/982 "2010-10-25T15:26:09Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > You know what, guys? I’m calling this thread. It’s not really fun anymore. I’m going home, I hear my mom calling, she’s got apple cider. You guys want apple cider? C’mon. Oh boy! Fuck yes, apple cider. I am \*all up in \*that apple cider business. P.S. Please everybody help me remember this thread the next time \*\*Bricker \*\*tries to argue that he isn’t a partisan hack. I’ve pointed it out to him several times so that he can give a good pedantic legal asswhupping to **Morella** ’s ridiculous claims about the Constitution, but so far he’s ignoring me. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/983 "2010-10-25T15:32:49Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > People, stop responding to the troll. > > I know that “Obvious troll is obvious” has become an internet cliche, but this is one of the clearest examples i’ve ever seen. I know it can be hard to resist, but don’t feed it. At least the mods are showing their usual one-the-ball-ness. Does consistency have a source? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/984 "2010-10-25T16:21:53Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > P.S. Please everybody help me remember this thread the next time \*\*Bricker \*\*tries to argue that he isn’t a partisan hack. I’ve pointed it out to him several times so that he can give a good pedantic legal asswhupping to **Morella** ’s ridiculous claims about the Constitution, but so far he’s ignoring me. Posting here is optional. There are times when I see poorly constructed arguments or uncited facts used to support an idea I generally agree with. I don’t feel an obligation to point out those weaknesses, although I do it on occasion. It’s not my job to do someone else’s homework for them. The nature of the beast around here is for discussions to just peter out, without any sense of conclusion or consensus. So I participate in the areas that I find most ineresting; answering about the things I know about, asking about the things I don’t, and with the vast majority of the board content somewhere in the middle. Just because I’m silent on something doesn’t mean I agree with it. I don’t see any reason to hold **Bricker** to a higher standard than that. Now can I have some cider, too? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/985 "2010-10-25T16:26:16Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I don’t see any reason to hold **Bricker** to a higher standard than that. Because \*\*his \*\*entire fucking \*raison d’etre \*on this board is to nitpick other people’s arguments, especially when it involves the law in any way, and then claim that he does it equally to conservatives and liberals. Seriously. There was a thread once where for god-knows-how-many-pages he was arguing because someone referred to something as “unconstitutional” meaning “in my layman’s opinion, it violates the Constitution,” which he was insisting was \*absolutely wrong \*because there was as of yet no ruling from the Supreme Court saying that it was against the Constitution. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/986 "2010-10-25T16:27:41Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > OK, now the truth comes out. They’re not interested in repealing the 14th amendment that ended slavery. This is your knowledge of the Constitution? [QUOTE=The Fourteenth Amendment] Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Thirteenth Amendment] Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. [/QUOTE] Now, which one of these ended slavery, do you think? It isn’t a tough question - it is even on the naturalization exam. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/987 "2010-10-25T16:33:26Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Oh boy! Fuck yes, apple cider. I am \*all up in \*that apple cider business. > > P.S. Please everybody help me remember this thread the next time \*\*Bricker \*\*tries to argue that he isn’t a partisan hack. I’ve pointed it out to him several times so that he can give a good pedantic legal asswhupping to **Morella** ’s ridiculous claims about the Constitution, but so far he’s ignoring me. Huh? As far as i can tell, **Bricker** hasn’t even participated in this thread. Do you mean that you’ve PMed him to ask him to contribute? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/988 "2010-10-25T16:34:20Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Because \*\*his \*\*entire fucking \*raison d’etre \*on this board is to nitpick other people’s arguments, especially when it involves the law in any way, and then claim that he does it equally to conservatives and liberals. Seriously. There was a thread once where for god-knows-how-many-pages he was arguing because someone referred to something as “unconstitutional” meaning “in my layman’s opinion, it violates the Constitution,” which he was insisting was \*absolutely wrong \*because there was as of yet no ruling from the Supreme Court saying that it was against the Constitution. :rolleyes: I don’t recall all of **Morella** ’s legal arguments in this thread. There was the “subject to the jurisdiction of” thing; any others? I wouldn’t say that arguing with that counts as a nitpick; more of a self-evident, metric shitload of wrongness. But then I’m not a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/989 "2010-10-25T16:50:59Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > As far as i can tell, **Bricker** hasn’t even participated in this thread. Do you mean that you’ve PMed him to ask him to contribute? He’s been nitpicking in another thread and I’ve asked him repeatedly there to come use his powers for good in this one. ETA: **Robot Arm** , I just want \*\*Bricker \*\*to specifically address the very wrong points that \*\*Morella \*\*is making about the Constitution (i.e., the several things she has claimed are unconstitutional, and her bizarre interpretation of “jurisdiction”). ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/990 "2010-10-25T17:20:12Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Because \*\*his \*\*entire fucking \*raison d’etre \*on this board is to nitpick other people’s arguments, especially when it involves the law in any way, and then claim that he does it equally to conservatives and liberals. Seriously. There was a thread once where for god-knows-how-many-pages he was arguing because someone referred to something as “unconstitutional” meaning “in my layman’s opinion, it violates the Constitution,” which he was insisting was \*absolutely wrong \*because there was as of yet no ruling from the Supreme Court saying that it was against the Constitution. :rolleyes: My memory doesn’t include the part that I’ve underlined. Not contradicting you, but my perusal of the Dope is not comprehensive. Could you provide a cite that shows him admitting to cruising the Dope to jump onto smack-down-able blanket assertions and claiming that his radar is tuned for _all_ such assertions, regardless of the poster’s political alignment? I have endeavored to make this request as specific as possible; please make any cites you provide conform to all of the elements I have mentioned above. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/991 "2010-10-25T17:27:52Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > And now, we’re getting close to the truth. I lived under a fake birth certificate for many years…all I had to was take a copy of someone else’s birth certificate, copy it, delete some stuff with whiteout, and type it back in, then make another copy again. My roommate told me to take it down to the black neightborhood in South Dallas, where people wouldn’t be very smart, and they would accept it and give me a driver’s license. It worked. > > I had to do this because I basically “escaped” from France and came back to the US in the 80’s, against my parents’ wishes. I was born in the US, and I am a citizen, but it was actually easier to trick some black folks into accepting a fake birth certificate than it was to, ultimately, obtain a real one. > > If I can do this, with a xerox copier and a bottle of whiteout…guess what…so can Obama. Whether or not his birth certificate is real, I don’t know and I don’t care. His real name is Barry Soetoro, he grew up in Indonesia, and he is a Muslim. I’ve posted video of him admitting to all of these things, and some of you people still don’t wish to believe it. That’s fine. Worship a fake Obamagod if you want to. Put your head up your ass…maybe the view is better for you. Do whatever it takes to make you happy, believe in whatever you need to believe in. Life is too short to do anything else. Whatever makes you happy, believe it, and live it. Just don’t ask me to believe it…I know better. Obviously, as a new guest to the boards, having registered this very month, you don’t know me. But in the nearly eleven years I have posted here, the sum of my posts cannot fairly be read to suggest that I have some deep need to support Obama’s presidency. Indeed, I look forward to January 20, 2013, and the inauguration of a replacement. That said, I feel you have made no case at all above. You analysis fails to address the original birth certificate, kept safe from white out and X-acto knives in the state’s vault. Assuming you feel the Hawaiian officials are in on it, you still must explain the newspaper announcement, which would be rather prescient for purposes of fraud. Finally, even if Obama had been born overseas, he was still a natural born citizen through his mother, who was a US citizen. Now turning to the meat of the matter for my arrival in this thread, the discussion of _jus soli_ citizenship under US law. Um… you’re wrong. I realize that lacks a bit of my usual panache, but when one is drowning, a teacup of water makes little difference. The entire basis for your claim seems to be that “under the jurisdiction thereof” means simply that the person is an alien. But apart from your claim, there is no caselaw supporting that view. As early as _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), we learn: > [@](#): > > That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583. > . > . > . > There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States there was any settled and definite rule of international law generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship. > . > . > . > The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption ‘from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found’ were stated as follows: ‘When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were [169 U.S. 649, 686] not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.’ They go on to declare that Wong Kim Ark is a US citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and his birth in San Francisco, even though his parents were alien. But beyond the Fourteenth Amendment, the decision adduces to the common law of England and of the US, and finds that the overwhelming weight of it supports that view as well. What precisely are you relying upon for the opposite view? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/992 "2010-10-25T18:22:30Z")
Thanks **Bricker**! ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/993 "2010-10-25T19:06:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What precisely are you relying upon for the opposite view? Wong Kim Ark was a _citizen_ per the Supreme Court, but nobody ever said Wong Kim Ark was a _natural born citizen._ And where do we look to find a way to make that distinction significant, since it isn’t supported by any jurisprudence? Why, original intent, of course! So goes the argument. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/994 "2010-10-25T19:10:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Oh boy! Fuck yes, apple cider. I am \*all up in \*that apple cider business. You are Tycho Brahe and I claim your silver nose. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/995 "2010-10-25T19:21:25Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Wong Kim Ark was a _citizen_ per the Supreme Court, but nobody ever said Wong Kim Ark was a _natural born citizen._ And where do we look to find a way to make that distinction significant, since it isn’t supported by any jurisprudence? Why, original intent, of course! > > So goes the argument. Well, _WKA_ does present the question as: > [@](#): > > The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” And they go on to answer that question in the affirmative. So I guess we have to confront the perplexing question of whether “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States” means that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States. Even if you you dispute that claim – an uphill climb if ever there was one – it’s pretty clear that the contrary position has no evidence at all. That is, _WKA_ makes clear that one’s parentage is (generally) irrelevant if you’re born in the United States. If someone were to contend that it’s otherwise, where is their proposed rule found? We admit that, say, Teddy Roosevelt was a natural born citizen, born in New York City. On what basis do we claim that Kim Lon Sun, also born in New York City, is not? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/996 "2010-10-25T19:26:09Z")
After a bit of research: The Supreme Court HAS used those terms ("“becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States” and “a natural-born citizen of the United States”) interchangeably: Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454 (1920), referring to the subject: > [@](#): > > It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation **was found** , in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, **to be a natural born American citizen** , the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California. (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/997 "2010-10-25T19:41:50Z")
Right, the Supreme Court has done so. But the Supreme Court isn’t who wrote the Constitution, and that’s our (for the purposes of this exercise I’m part of an “our”) true source of authority. That’s how we get to the jurisdiction question. The claim is that the framers of the 14th intended “jurisdiction” to mean something more specific and restrictive than has been allowed for since; specifically (and we can make up some support here in Slaughterhouse and a couple others in defining the term) that jurisdiction means “sole jurisdiction;” i.e. subject only to American and not to any foreign jurisdiction. Which is why Obama’s father being Kenyan is relevant - if his dad’s subject to British or any other jurisdiction, Obama isn’t subject only to American, and if he isn’t subject _only_ to American jurisdiction, he isn’t a natural born citizen under the 14th. My understanding of this argument falls apart a bit here, and I’m not sure how “we” reconcile the citizenship thing with the natural born citizenship thing, like whether Obama’s not a citizen at all or just not a natural born one, but you have to admit that’s pretty good. I feel like a Scientologist. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/998 "2010-10-25T19:44:34Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Right, the Supreme Court has done so. But the Supreme Court isn’t who wrote the Constitution, and that’s our (for the purposes of this exercise I’m part of an “our”) true source of authority. > > That’s how we get to the jurisdiction question. The claim is that the framers of the 14th intended “jurisdiction” to mean something more specific and restrictive than has been allowed for since; specifically (and we can make up some support here in Slaughterhouse and a couple others in defining the term) that jurisdiction means “sole jurisdiction;” i.e. subject only to American and not to any foreign jurisdiction. Which is why Obama’s father being Kenyan is relevant - if his dad’s subject to British or any other jurisdiction, Obama isn’t subject only to American, and if he isn’t subject _only_ to American jurisdiction, he isn’t a citizen under the 14th. > > My understanding of this argument falls apart a bit here, but you have to admit that’s pretty good. I feel like a Scientologist. Sure… except that the analysis in Wong Kim Ark eviscerates that position, by pointing out that wholly apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, the universally understood practice at the time was _jus soli_ citizenship. So if the Fourteenth Amendment’s jurisdiction language truly created this divide, why was that intent not made clear at the time. On what basis is it now asserted? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/999 "2010-10-25T19:49:07Z")
“We” are subscribers to the dissenting opinion in that particular dispute, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/1000 "2010-10-25T19:52:07Z")
To wit: [QUOTE=The obviously correct Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, J. Harlan concurring] The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liegemen to their liege lord. It was not local and temporary, as was the obedience to the laws owed by aliens within the dominions of the Crown, but permanent and indissoluble, and not to be cancelled by any change of time or place or circumstances. And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the Fourteenth Amendment prescribed the same rule as the act, and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it “absolute and unbending” just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences. … On the contrary, [p732] I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens. Tested by this rule, Wong in Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760.md?page=51)