Posted on 01/27/2012 10:02:09 AM PST by Danae
I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.
Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:
Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”
Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”
(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)
The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.
Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.
According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.
It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.
Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.
Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?
Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.
Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.
Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.
The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.
Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
[For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.]
The problem for you is that I read history. In particular I recommend that you have a look at Chapter 3 ("The 'Privileges or Immunities of a Citizen of the United States'") of Raoul Berger's Government by Judiciary - The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. You can read this chapter for free at the Online Library of Liberty. Here's a pull quote:
In sum, the purpose of the framers was to protect blacks from discrimination with respect to specified “fundamental rights,” enumerated in the Civil Rights Act and epitomized in the §1 “privileges or immunities” clause. To achieve that purpose they made the black both a citizen “of the United States and of the State in which he resides.” They did not intend by the addition of State citizenship to diminish the rights they had been at such pains to specify, but the better to secure them.ML/NJ
And that is the key, if one is not bound by the laws that grant a right or privilege, then they are NOT under the “jurisdiction” of said law to pass that right onto their children. Period!!!
You are assuming facts not in evidence ... maybe they do.
or if they do, why have they not leaked it?
One cannot know for sure, but my theory is that they are waiting for the right time. For instance, if Israel decides its survival depends on destroying the Iranian nuclear program, say about September. Bibi calls/visits Obama and says "We have this file ... could be devestating to your re-election. But it can never see the light of day if you support us on Iran."
But, of course that blackmail threat could come from anywhere - China, Russia, maybe even Iran. A compelling reason to make sure a candidate PROVES his eligibility -- so he will not be an object of blackmail.
What is the name of the corrupt firm that has responsibility to maintain the judicial archives and who were caught deleting the case Minor v. Happersett and all its references?
I always wonder how this important case can be proven legitimate and valid now that it has been deleted from the database archives used by courts. It also seems to me that backup archives should be copied daily by a non-partisan government organization such as the National Archives and others just to keep the records honest.
You do know that Leo worship is not a virtue
It is only not clear to those that are paid to make the issue not clear.
NBC=Born on US Soil to a Citizen Father and a Citizen mother.
Citizen=Born in USA, Subject to jurisdiction.
We could have a couple six year olds figure out which category the president falls in. They probably wouldn't charge anything either.
We are living at the beginning of the post-Republic, post Constitution era. It is ugly but it is a reality. I don't know if the evil course now enjoined can be reversed. The sleaze factor is so high in our courts, I would be surprised if the truth of this lying socialist bastard ever comes out.
Indians
Good news, your daughter is still eligible to be President some day. It would be no differant than someone who was born in a US military hospital in Germany, or someone who was born prematurely while their parents were overseas on vacation.
which law?
the law at the time of the birth?
the law at the time of running for office?
common law vs statutory law regarding statutory interpritation.
Constitution vs statutory.
administrative code vs black letter law...
it goes on and on.
this is still a go nowhere argument. There are only two types of citizens.
Well if she were anointed by the democratic party there would be no problem. Laws are for the little people, royalty has their own rules.
Ever wonder why a thieving congressman who steals a few million dollars is only reprimanded, not jailed like you would be?
Legally speaking one must actually be “UNDER” the laws of citizenship before one is “SUBJECT” to them. Therefore one at birth who's parents(BOTH father & mother in one union in the eyes of the natural law of allegiance) are NOT under the “JURISDICTION” of the laws of citizenship, can not gain that which the “JURISDICTION” of said laws of citizenship define.
Slaves were never considered to be under the laws of citizenship as they were not “free persons” as defined by A1S2 of the US Constitution and representation. But when they were freed, they naturally became members of the nation because of same said law as they were now classified under the law as persons, not property and being slaves, they never owed political allegiance to any other nation.
sfl
I did not see how Donofrio was writing here to define what ‘natural born citizen’ is, but rather that is something more than being born here or as you refine as something more than simple citizenship. Rather at the very end of his piece he refers to Minor v. Happersett where it is unequivocally determined that ‘natural born citizen’ means a child born in jurisdictions of the United States of two citizen parents.
I also failed to see any effect of your point of ‘simple birth’ contrasted to ‘simple citizenship’ other than a splitting of hairs or perhaps at most an addition of precision where none was really needed since Donofrio is not writing statute but merely drawing attention of the rule of ‘statutory construction’ to lay readers as a rule that every lawyer knows well as a basic of law.
I’m with you!
And there lies the 2 different citizen meanings!
As would I, for the same reasons.
Justia.com and Public.Resource.org. The Owners are Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud. Malamud is connected to the Soros Foundation.
The courts do NOT use Justia or Public.Resource.Org. The courts use either the physical SCOTUS reporters (printed books), or paid subscription databases. There are subscription sources for SCOTUS cases, which cost literally thousands of dollars a month such as Lexis and Jstor, and I have access to both of these and others through American Military University Library as I am a student there.
Justia was designed to be used by Law students, Non-profit organizations, start-up businesses and others who could not afford the expense of a lawyer, or the subscription fees. That just happens to cover a vast majority of the American Population.
Right now there is NO digital certification for Government information. If my understanding is correct, there is a real movement within the Government Printing Office to do precisely that. It would do Americans a WORLD of good.
sfl
all very well. They do, however, attempt to override other sections of the Constitution. Especially the part limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. Which are pretty damn specific.
I beg to differ. Leo pimped his article as being an open and shut, irrebutable answer to the ultimate question. I pointed out that it was circular, and you end up in exactly the same place you started.
My goal wasn't to rehash the NBC debate, because that's boring as hell. My goal was to point out that this particular argument had a flawed premise, and added nothing new.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.