User talk:Moe Dickey

July 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Natural-born-citizen clause, you may be blocked from editing. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Commentary and personal analysis? Where in this post that you let stand on Wikipedia,is there any thing but "Commentary and personal analysis"?

(The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1])

That was nothing but "Personal Opinion". I think what is going on here is your own personal opinion if you can really state that what is posted above has any bearing in U.S. history,U.S. Supreme court rulings or law. I will re-post the factual information about the U.S.Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen". But I will take out any thing that can be considered "non-neutral". Which by the way would be impossible given the lack of factual information that you seem OK with allowing the public to read "Personal opinion" as the truth of what the definition of a "natural born citizen" is.

The reality is that the term "Natural born citizen" arose from and was born from the definition of great Britain's "A natural born subject" for the definitions are pretty much the same,save the King's definition claimed more ownership over the people. I have 100's of years of "History" to back up what it is that I am saying. Whereas the posts that you let stand have none. I thought Wikipedia was "every one's" to help make a more truthful and less factually mistaken site. It is unbelievable that you would attack me,but yet let it stand when some one claims that the term "Natural born citizen" applies to aliens offspring. That is an out right lie. And the fact that their is not even a small mention of the definition that I supplied goes to show that the definition given is one sided only. There were 176 cases pending in the U.S.Supreme Court about this definition since 2008. All have been dismissed and grounds of lack of standing or other technical grounds. But never on the merits of the cases. There are 2 such cases still standing. And for any one to dare say that the definition of a "Natural born citizen" is merely what you allow here on Wikipedia is a complete and total falsehood. Even being aware of Wikipedia's leftist stance,I still thought some thing like the truth would actually mean some thing here.


 * Wikipedia works on using what are termed reliable sources in articles. There's a pretty specific definition of with is or is not a reliable source (or RS) so please read the page I linked.  Basically, information that might be challenged by someone must be backed by a verifiable, reliable source.  Books work, journals, many magazines, reputable websites but rarely blogs or self-published websites.  Your own personal analysis and opinion is, unfortunately, not considered a reliable source. Ravensfire ( talk ) 12:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not my "Personal Opinion". I have multiple U.S. Supreme court cases which proves what I am saying. I also have articles and documents written at the time of our Constitution which language that also proves what I am saying. You are just falsely assuming that it is my "Personal Opinion" and nothing more. I don't know how to place links on words in my posts yet,but when I do I will make sure that every thing I say in here has a provable link which will confirm the truth about hat it is that I post. That way what I post will be beyond your reproach according to Wikipedia policy's. But even then I expect to have my posts removed regardless of their factual and provable nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.10.149 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote which you included above is not someone's "personal opinion"; it comes from a report published by the Congressional Research Service, and a footnote is included in the article citing the source for this statement. Per WP:NPOV, we may (and, indeed, must) include "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  So if you do have reliable sources putting forth alternative interpretations for the Natural-born-citizen clause, you are certainly welcome to make mention of them.  If the current article text appears to be one-sided, this is simply a reflection of the apparent lack of any reliable source for any other viewpoint.  Please keep in mind that "reliable sources" can not include your own personal opinion (including your conclusion as to what some document "obviously" means); please read WP:NOR (the No Original Research policy), including in particular the section prohibiting synthesis.  We also cannot use blogs or other "self-published" sources.  And if you were specifically thinking of citing Minor v. Happersett (the 1875 voting rights case), or The Law of Nations (the 18th-century political treatise), we've been down that road before:  I would strongly advise you to read Talk:Minor v. Happersett for earlier discussion and background explaining why these are not acceptable as defining the meaning of "natural-born citizen".  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God. You site an off branch of Congress "The Congressional Research center",but SCOTUS opinion is not good enough to qualify as a reliable source? Wow. Really? It is documented in a court of law.lol OK,no need for Minor v. Happersett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.10.149 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the original research policy page. You can cite a SC opinion for what it says, but you CANNOT then offer your interpretation of what it means.  That's original research (OR) and editors are not allowed to use it when creating articles on Wikipedia.  We rely on secondary sources for the analysis, using due weight to present various opinions on a subject when required.  Views that have relatively little mention in secondary sources get relatively little mention in a Wikipedia article.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The OPINION of SCOTUS is the INTERPRETATION. Or have you forgotten that SCOTUS opinion is law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.10.149 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's get concrete here. Can you cite us one of the passages from a case you're proposing to use, and tell us what you understand it to mean?  Also, do you understand the difference between holdings and dicta?  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Moe Dickey, you are invited to the Teahouse
I am sure this is not good enough for you either,but here it is any ways

http://www.theamericandriver.com/files/wp/data/firstcongress_session2_chapter3.html

FIRST CONGRESS. Sess.II. Chap. 3. 1790 Chap. III. -- An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)

Section I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided Also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(a) Approved, March 26, 1790. (You're seeing this right?)

No Supreme Court ruling has been made to rescind this Congressional statement defining "Natural Born Citizen," nor has any legislation or Constitutional amendment addressed changing this Congressional statement of definition. The "Naturalization Act of 1795" removed the words "natural born", but did not change the statement that both parents must be citizens. And this act alone is unconstitutional..."natural born Citizen" is a statement within our Constitution, and therefore requires a Constitutional Amendment to change.

(The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1])

I am sorry,but this is a completely insane and misrepresented definition. I can not believe for the life of my how any one can let that stand. Even to aliens parents?!?!? OK,let me put it to you this way. In the Constitution,there are a few terms that deal with citizenship. "Naturalization" "Neutralization" "citizen" and "natural born citizen". And perhaps there are other terms that I am missing here as well. But the point being is this,Wikipedia seems to think that these different terms or terminology have no defining meanings that differentiates one from the other. Our founding fathers must have just put those in there just for the hell of it right?? I think not sir.


 * Okay, first, you still need to read up on reliable sources as your quoted page is anything BUT a reliable source. Ah, you say, but it's quoting the Congressional record! True ... but that's not all it does. It then says that this hasn't been a SC ruling rescinding it. Err, that may be technically correct but that's mostly because Congress repealed the law. See, on something like this we're looking for scholarly sources because they would do the digging and research on this. Your "source" stopped as soon as they could or deliberately ignored Congressional action to pursue their agenda.


 * Oh, you probably want proof that it was repealed, don't you. Let's see, two places you could look. First would be the wikisource for your 1790 law - here. Look at the footnotes which note it was, in fact, repealed. That directs you to this page which is the law, passed by the 3rd Congress, repealing the 1790 law. Whoops. Kinda blows your point out of the water, doesn't it. No, don't bother to thank me, it's okay. Always glad to educate folks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)