Obama’s ineligibility: Our Lexington and Concord moment is coming

Canada Free Press ^ | June 24, 2011 | Lawrence Sellin

[Ordinary_American]

In a February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.“

The first “shots” of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.

There is now a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the American people.

Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents.

The present occupiers of the US Government openly violate the Constitution, are hopelessly corrupt and politically correct, have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society.

They can no longer be trusted as guardians of our posterity.

Not a week goes by without yet another document analyst claiming that his Certificate of Live Birth presented by Obama at his press conference on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.

[DiogenesLamp]

Jeff Winston said:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790,... "and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

If you can shoot down my reasoning, you're certainly welcome to have a go at it. I doubt that you will, since you repeatedly completely refused, about half a dozen times, to respond at all to my analysis of Wong Kim Ark. But, there it is.

-------------------------------------------------------

I am very glad that you quoted the Naturalization act of 1790. That means you accept it as part of your argument, therefore you will have to accept ALL of it! It goes on further to say:

"Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose FATHERS have never been resident in the United States:"

As you yourself point out, this act was produced a mere 3 years after the adoption of the constitution (actually just 1 year) , and the Members of Congress were pretty much the same people as the Original Delegates. This act gives a clear insight to what they were thinking regarding citizenship status of the children of Foreign Fathers.

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

[DiogenesLamp]

And these were our nation’s FOUNDING FATHERS that passed this law. It was enacted three short years after the Constitution itself!

AMEN! It gives CLEAR insight into what they were thinking.

It is abundantly clear, then, that the Founding Fathers intended for at least the children of US citizens abroad to be able to run for President. They quickly passed a law that would remove any doubt as to whether such children were eligible to run for President or not.

AMEN AGAIN! I agree absolutely that the members of the First Congress (basically the Delegates to the Convention.) did not regard foreign birth as an obstacle to allegiance. However, an Act of Congress cannot override an Article of the Constitution. So subsequent legislation cannot modify the original meaning of Article II, it can only indicate what the Delegates were thinking when they voted on it. (a small but important difference.)

Of course, Obama is (apparently) the other case: that of a child born on US soil with only one US citizen parent.

Yes, but to a foreign father, something which they absolutely prohibited regarding citizenship. As I have mentioned, in 1789, it was ONLY the Father that determined citizenship. The mother was automatically the same citizenship as her husband in all nations.

Nonetheless, you can spin all you want, but you can’t get away from the plain fact that the obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was very clearly NOT to limit natural born citizen status to ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND to two US citizen parents.

And you cannot spin away the fact that it was the obvious intention of the Founding Fathers to very clearly PROHIBIT citizenship for the Children of a Foreign Father.

Checkmate.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think she’s intelligent, capable, dedicated, honorable, articulate, already battle-hardened and tested, and our best candidate for President of the United States.

I agree that she's all of above with one exception. "Best Candidate." That I don't know about. Given the Damage the media has inflicted on her reputation with continuous mocking and ridicule, too many people have been convinced that she is an idiot despite the truth. Unlike Us, they are not reasonable people. (smile)

I am however aware that most Liberals and Democrats think she is an idiot and some urge us to nominate her because she will be a losing candidate in the General Election.

For this reason, I regard some people's indication of support for her as suspicious, because a Democrat troll in enemy territory (of which there is a great deal of suspicion about you) might very well say the same thing. I would very much like to hear more of your praise for Sarah Palin, and your reason's for preferring her.

[DiogenesLamp]

As far as Palin herself goes, I think she’s charming and articulate enough to turn the tables, once she gets turned loose on the campaign trail and the public is listening to 50% Palin and 50% media instead of 5 or 10% Palin and 90 or 95% media.

That’s what I was attempting to say.

Okay, i'm mollified.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lots of people will get involved with an exciting candidate. Star power is an asset to getting elected. Palin has it. Romney, on the other hand, is about as exciting (at least as far as I can see) as last week's leftovers.

A wind up toy monkey would be a better President than what we have now. I like Palin better than anyone else known to me, but I have serious reservations about her ability to win. On the other hand, what more can they throw at her?

I would prefer her as Vice President at this point. Perry/Palin? Cain/Palin?

[Vickery2010]

“So you are arguing that because another country doesn’t want him that makes him the equivalent of a loyal American?”

No, I’m saying that ‘no dual citizenships’ and ‘two citizen parents’ are not synonymous. A kid can be born of two citizen parents and still have dual citizenship. And a kid can be born of two NON-citizen parents and still NOT have dual citizenship.

So when allmendream says that people weren’t making the ‘two citizen parent’ argument before the election, it doesn’t do any good to point to a ‘no dual citizenship’ argument. Because that’s a different argument.

[Vickery2010]

“Nope, kids born here inherit their parents Citizenship through birthright, anchor babies are dual Citizens of this Country and from whatever Country the parents are Citizens of.”

No, kids born here only inherit their parents’ citizenship if their parents’ home country’s laws grant them citizenship.

Say a kid’s parents are from Kazakhstan. And let’s say that Kazakhstan does not automatically grant citizenship to the foreign-born children of its expatriates. If the law of Kazakhstan says the kid is not a citizen of his parents’ home country, no other country can overrule Kazakhstan and say “Sorry, this kid IS a citizen of your country.” It’s Kazakhstan’s choice, and ONLY their choice whether the kid is a citizen. Amorphous concepts of “birthright” have nothing to do with it.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I'll give you another example: Under Italian law, Italian citizenship passes to the children of Italian citizens, regardless of where they're born. In my case, my great-grandfather emigrated in 1913 and became a citizen in 1943 (less than a year before one of his sons died a few miles inland from Utah Beach). My grandfather, born here in 1920, inherited Italian citizenship although he was never aware of the fact. Since he never specifically renounced that citizenship, he passed it to my mother, who likewise was unaware of the fact that she was a dual citizen and never specifically renounced Italian citizenship. And she passed it to me. If I collect the paperwork to prove that chain, I can get an Italian passport. That's not to say that I'm applying for Italian naturalization. Under their law, I already am a citizen.

So here I am, born in the US to two US-born citizen parents, the grandson of four US-born citizen parents, and due to a quirk of their law, Italy considers me a citizen. Am I a "natural born citizen" of the US?

[Jeff Winston]

As you like. One would think that an internet denizen of your experience would be past the point of taking faceless incivility seriously. I do however notice that your position gives you an excuse not to answer the questions. Clever tactic that.

You might also notice that I'm not at all given to NOT answering questions, even the toughest of questions and objections, addressed in a civil manner from civil people.

In that regard, you did actually make an interesting objection regarding Indians and slaves. In spite of your general incivility, the point was interesting and relevant enough that I'm going to respond to it.

Your point was that Indians and slaves, in spite of having been born on US soil (jus soli) were not considered to be natural born citizens.

It wasn't just slaves. It was ALL people of African descent, no matter how whether they were free or slave, and no matter whether their parents had been free or slave.

The fact is, both Indians and black people were regarded as foreign or alien nations of people, even though they resided on United States territory.

This regarding was so strong as to produce the disastrous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which was NOT a close decision.

It was a 7-2 decision.

The Dred Scott decision reads, in part:

A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

So the Court ruled, 7 to 2, that not only were free black people NOT citizens, it was not and never would be even POSSIBLE for a free black person EVER to become a citizen of the United States. It didn't matter HOW many generations their ancestors had been here, and it didn't matter to what extent they made themselves a part of the community and contributed. They were excluded simply by virtue of the fact of their ancestry.

More than that, the Court ruled that no State could even CHANGE this and pass a law to make black people citizens! The court also ruled that there was NOTHING a State could do that would allow a black man to file suit in a federal court.

The Dred Scott Court in fact relies on Vattel in making their argument. This is, as far as I can determine, the ONLY Supreme Court decision that does. And the Supreme Court later REJECTS their reasoning in Wong Kim Ark, quoting instead from the dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

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.

He then comments:

And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

Donofrio says "to this extent" refers to basic citizenship.

That's nonsense.

"To this extent" refers to: to the extent that they allowed citizenship to be granted at all.

Citizenship was not granted, as you noted, to Indians or slaves. But beyond that, it wasn't granted by the Dred Scott Court to any black people at all.

Any white couple could move to the United States from Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Serbia, Poland, anywhere in Europe, and their children born here would be natural-born citizens, even though they themselves had never become citizens.

And yet black people born HERE, and Indians born HERE, were not allowed to be citizens, even though their ancestors might have been free inhabitants of the United States, and even fully participating in US society, for generations.

This was an obvious absurdity, it was literally racist, and the injustice of it ended up tearing our nation apart.

So it's not that Indians and slaves weren't considered to be natural born citizens... it's that "Injuns, Chinermen and N*****s" were excluded (in a way that was COMPLETELY inconsistent with treatment of the white Europeans who were also from other and completely FOREIGN nations) from EVER being citizens at all.

And as I say, this policy ended by tearing our nation apart.

So if you want to base your doctrine of citizenship on those policies, you need to understand what you're basing it on.

[Jeff Winston]

A kid can be born of two citizen parents and still have dual citizenship.

That's actually true, if the laws of another nation grant citizenship to grandchildren of citizens.

[DiogenesLamp]

So here I am, born in the US to two US-born citizen parents, the grandson of four US-born citizen parents, and due to a quirk of their law, Italy considers me a citizen. Am I a "natural born citizen" of the US?

American law is not bound by foreign law. As far as the U.S. is concerned, your U.S. Citizenship is the only thing that matters. Whether one country or another wants to claim you is irrelevant to your U.S. Citizenship.

[Vickery2010]

Hey, Rick Santorum’s dad was an Italian immigrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

I wonder if that means Senator Santorum was born a dual citizen, or if his dad naturalized before he was born.

[Jeff Winston]

Now. Having answered that particular point by you, since it was a relevant and valid point and has been raised by others, I will likely not respond to anything else you post. Ever.

By your past statement that you would happily cheer if a fellow conservative (myself) were to be taken out and shot, you’ve shown the kind of person you personally are. So don’t expect to hear from me again, unless it’s to point out that I don’t want anything to do with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

It wasn't just slaves. It was ALL people of African descent, no matter how whether they were free or slave, and no matter whether their parents had been free or slave.

Whew! Big response. I don't think it's productive for me to answer all of it, so i'll focus on this.

Manumission.

My recollection of History is that Both Indians and Blacks were able to become full citizens, and that there are numerous examples of both.

James Armistead

He was freed and given a pension, as were other Black revolutionary Heroes. Check out this website for a few other examples.

http://www.footnote.com/page/693_patriots_of_color_revolutionary_war/

[Jeff Winston]

First, I would like to correct something I just wrote.

I was incorrect in regard to the situation of Indians (as judged by the Dred Scott case), and the policy of never allowing Chinese people resident in the United States to become citizens was not enacted by Congress until later (1882).

That policy is what the government attempted to enforce upon Wong Kim Ark, even though he was born in the United States. The Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark struck that down, ruling that Wong was born a US citizen, even though his parents were not citizens, not eligible for citizenship, and never would be.

The Dred Scott Court actually did allow for the possibility of Indians being naturalized by act of Congress, although the practical implications of this ruling are still unclear to me at the present time.

I've no doubt that there were plenty of Indians and black folks who took their part as citizens in the various states. But one part of the ruling in Dred Scott was that this was irrelevant. A person could be a citizen of an individual State, but NOT a citizen of the United States.

Not a very good ruling, if you ask me.

It's kind of like, A is a member of B. B is a member of C. Therefore, A is NOT a member of C.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

But I digress.

Here's some of what the Court said in Dred Scott:

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or anyone it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons, yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them...

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And, for the same reason, it cannot introduce any person or description of persons who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State, and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

Well, you can see their point. However, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have ruled that Mr. Scott was a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of those other states. After all, if you're a citizen of Missouri, you're not a citizen of Florida.

I don't know is I mentioned this before, but the Dred Scott ruling even stated that Congress had no power to make black people citizens!

That's why the ruling had to be overruled by a Constitutional Amendment, the Fourteenth.

In any event, they ruled that even if Missouri made black people citizens, they were not and never could be, United States citizens.

And if Congress wanted to pass a law making black people citizens, they were forbidden to do so.

Such was the ruling of the Dred Scott Court.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now. Having answered that particular point by you, since it was a relevant and valid point and has been raised by others, I will likely not respond to anything else you post. Ever.

By your past statement that you would happily cheer if a fellow conservative (myself) were to be taken out and shot, you’ve shown the kind of person you personally are. So don’t expect to hear from me again, unless it’s to point out that I don’t want anything to do with you.

If you put yourself into a public forum you cannot dictate with whom you will debate. If necessary, I shall simply ask one of the other freepers to relay my point to you, and then we can play the childish game of "Please inform Jeff Winston that..." while you say "Please inform DiogenesLamp that..." I am almost prepared to do that now regarding my response to your bringing up the Naturalization act of 1790.

You assert that you do not wish to respond because of my perceived incivility, but I perceive that you do not wish to respond because my points pummel your points into unconsciousness. Regardless of the reason, I don't think you will be successful in your attempts to dodge my points, for I suspect that I can find at least one person who will be willing to relay them, and then you will have to come up with a new excuse for not addressing the argument put towards you.

I would suggest that a classier (and more practical) approach would be to address only such messages that are put forth in a civil manner. This compels a person to be polite or be ignored, and permits you to put forth the only terms that are likely to be respected.

[Jeff Winston]

I'm happy to address any valid point - and have.

I am NOT happy to correspond with you. I don't associate with people who state they would cheer if I were to be taken out and shot.

If you don't understand this, then let me say it a bit more plainly: I regard such a person as completely and totally immoral. I could use more colorful language, but hopefully you get the point that I no longer regard you, based upon your statements, as someone I have any desire to associate with in any way.

Therefore, if you want a specific question addressed by me, then find a decent person to ask it for you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I’ve had others on FR tell me differently, that I’m not a natural born citizen even three generations removed from my immigrant ancestor. Not that i’m interested in running for president.

[Jeff Winston]

while you say "Please inform DiogenesLamp that..."

And I won't say, "pleas inform DiogenesLamp that..."

I will however, respond to questions from decent people.

[Jeff Winston]

Bubba Ho-Tep 2012!!!