Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Is Dwayne "The Rock" a US citizen?

196 views
Skip to first unread message

jack

unread,
Jun 8, 2016, 11:16:24 AM6/8/16
to
Yeah, as he was born in California, but who knows? Pop was Canadian and Mom a Samoan.

Are American Samoans American?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/opinion/are-american-samoans-american.html?_r=0

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2016, 12:04:15 PM6/8/16
to
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:16:24 AM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> Yeah, as he was born in California, but who knows? Pop was Canadian and Mom a Samoan.

If he was born in CA and his father was not here on a diplomatic or military mission then he's a natural born US citizen. On what grounds do you ask "who knows"?


> Are American Samoans American?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/opinion/are-american-samoans-american.html?_r=0

Also,
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-analysis-puerto-rico-special-no-more/

I can't find the quote, but I'm pretty sure Justice Thomas said something about people born in Puerto Rico not being natural born citizens.

David Amicus

unread,
Jun 8, 2016, 12:25:01 PM6/8/16
to
Because he was born in California he is automatically a US citizen.

AS sends delegates to the National Conventions.

David Amicus

unread,
Jun 8, 2016, 12:26:53 PM6/8/16
to
https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/comments/47skgt/american_samoagovernor_and_top_three_local/

jack

unread,
Jun 8, 2016, 4:52:48 PM6/8/16
to
Just joshing a bit.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,
Jun 9, 2016, 8:33:37 AM6/9/16
to
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:25:01 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 8:16:24 AM UTC-7, jack wrote:
> > Yeah, as he was born in California, but who knows? Pop was Canadian and Mom a Samoan.
> >
> > Are American Samoans American?
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/opinion/are-american-samoans-american.html?_r=0
>
> Because he was born in California he is automatically a US citizen.

With some minor exceptions. I think.

>
> AS sends delegates to the National Conventions.

That has nothing to do with citizenship. The Dems could allow the Palestinians a place at their convention and AFAIK it wouldn't be a constitutional issue.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,
Jun 9, 2016, 8:34:47 AM6/9/16
to
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 4:52:48 PM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> Just joshing a bit.

If The Donald gets his way this is going to become a serious question. And I think a lot of people are starting to agree with him. After all, the A14 just presents us with a framework. Right?

jack

unread,
Jun 9, 2016, 8:47:06 AM6/9/16
to
Until there is an amendment or SC ruling, yes, any law or reg is up for grabs, and even after it still remains up for debate, unless you think that Dred Scott was the final rule on Af-Ams' position in US life.

David Johnston

unread,
Jun 9, 2016, 11:17:07 AM6/9/16
to
On 6/9/2016 6:47 AM, jack wrote:
> Until there is an amendment or SC ruling, yes, any law or reg is up for grabs, and even after it still remains up for debate, unless you think that Dred Scott was the final rule on Af-Ams' position in US life.
>

Dred Scott was never reversed by a court ruling. It was merely rendered
null by a new amendment.

jack

unread,
Jun 9, 2016, 6:03:57 PM6/9/16
to
Which is what I said in the first sentence. In others cases one SC overrides another previous one as Brown v Bd of Ed knocked out Plessis v Ferguson.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,
Jun 10, 2016, 12:26:00 AM6/10/16
to
On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 8:47:06 AM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> Until there is an amendment or SC ruling, yes, any law or reg is up for grabs, and even after it still remains up for debate, unless you think that Dred Scott was the final rule on Af-Ams' position in US life.

Yes. But do we want to abandon the current interpretation that most people have of A14?

David Johnston

unread,
Jun 10, 2016, 12:49:01 AM6/10/16
to
On 6/9/2016 4:03 PM, jack wrote:
> Which is what I said in the first sentence. In others cases one SC overrides another previous one as Brown v Bd of Ed knocked out Plessis v Ferguson.
>

Note that the way Plessis versus Ferguson was knocked out was by
pointing out that while "Separate but Equal" might be constitutional, in
practice Separate was never Equal.

David Amicus

unread,
Jun 10, 2016, 12:56:02 AM6/10/16
to
Since Plessy was not overturned until Brown in the 1950s, when Harry Truman integrated the military by executive order was that an unconstitutional act?

David Johnston

unread,
Jun 10, 2016, 1:02:52 AM6/10/16
to
No.

jack

unread,
Jun 10, 2016, 9:39:46 AM6/10/16
to
My understanding of Plessey was that it supported a negative, that is, segregation was not illegal if 'equal' facilities were supplied; separate fountains, bathrooms, backs of buses, etc. It did not rule integration illegal.
0 new messages