Arpaio: I briefed Santorum on birth certificate investigation

CNN ^ | 02/21/12 | Jim Acosta

[writer33]

Phoenix (CNN) – Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, briefed GOP contender Rick Santorum on his investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate, the controversial law enforcement official told reporters Tuesday.

After a speech to a Republican gathering in Phoenix where Santorum appeared earlier in the day, Arpaio explained he wanted to inform the candidate of his investigation "as a matter of fairness in case he wouldn't want me to support him."

Arpaio said he plans to endorse one of the four remaining GOP candidates in the coming weeks. But the sheriff added he would not make his choice known before he announces the findings of his birth certificate probe at a news conference set for March 1st. This endorsement would be his second in the race; in November 2011, he endorsed then-candidate Rick Perry.

[Harlan1196]

Legally he is a natural born citizen. We are a country of laws and the law is pretty clear on the matter regardless of what birther web sites tell you.

[philman_36]

A citizen at the moment of birth is a Natural Born Citizen.
That's an impossibility. Can you see how?

However, YOUR small group of Birthers wants to redefine the term “Natural Born Citizen”.
A most interesting choice of words. What do they want to redefine it from.

[Kansas58]

A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.

[philman_36]

But no Court will remove Obama from office after the fact.

Can a court, or other appropriate State authority, order an ineligible candidate off of a ballot or that they not be placed on a ballot before an election?

Yes

Does a candidate automatically gets a pass from proving their eligibility simply because they held the position due to a previous election or do they have to re-qualify for each election?

[philman_36]

Legally he is a natural born citizen. We are a country of laws and the law is pretty clear on the matter regardless of what birther web sites tell you.
Which law? Is it a positive law or a Constitutional law that does so?

[philman_36]

A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.

Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?

[philman_36]

Sorry again...that should have been a question.

However, YOUR small group of Birthers wants to redefine the term “Natural Born Citizen”.
A most interesting choice of words. What do they want to redefine it from?

[woofie]

They will paint him as a nut....I hope he has something concrete

[woofie]

The best that could be hoped for is that Obama received a college scholarship as a foreigner or there is something to the SS # business

[philman_36]

It says “To 103”.

[Harlan1196]

Constitutional law. WKA in particular.

[philman_36]

Constitutional law. WKA in particular.
WKA isn't Constitutional law.
WKA is common law, that being the concept of precedence.

[philman_36]

Legally he is a natural born citizen. We are a country of laws and the law is pretty clear on the matter regardless of what birther web sites tell you.

Which law? Is it a positive law or a Constitutional law that does so?

[philman_36]

I can't very well answer my self now, can I.

Legally he is a natural born citizen. We are a country of laws and the law is pretty clear on the matter regardless of what birther web sites tell you.

Which law? Is it a positive law or a Constitutional law that does so?

[Harlan1196]

This is the definition of Constitutional law that I used:

Constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, Constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society, which includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (The Executive, Legislature, Judiciary) of the federal government, and the rights (e.g., human rights and civil rights) of the individual in relation to both federal and state government.

Because the supreme court plays such an important role in interpreting the constitution, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings. Some of the most familiar topics of Constitutional law are the due process clauses, freedoms of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the Bill of Rights.

http://www.statelawyers.com/Practice/Practice_Detail.cfm/PracticeTypeID:22

“study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings.” is what I keyed on.

It would appear to be a specialized sub-set of the Common Law. Not everything in the common law involves the Constitution.

[woofie]

It says “To 103”.

Is that bad ? I was just making a general comment

[philman_36]

Once the ruling/decision was rendered in WKA it became common law or precedent. WKA isn't Constitutional law.

Legally he is a natural born citizen. We are a country of laws and the law is pretty clear on the matter regardless of what birther web sites tell you.

Which law? Is it a positive law or a Constitutional law that does so?

[philman_36]

Is that bad ?
Not in and of itself. Hot topic. I notice a lot out of necessity.

I was just making a general comment
And you've cleared things up nicely. Thanks.

[philman_36]

This is the definition of Constitutional law that I used...

I can find numerous definitions as well. Here's one...

@constitutional law: an overview

The broad topic of constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society. This includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) of the federal government, and the rights of the individual in relation to both federal and state government. The area of judicial review is an important subject within Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. Consequently, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings.
While the topic also covers the interpretation and implementation of state constitutions, without qualification it is usually understood as referring to the Federal Constitution.

Lawyers study, or look for, precedence, or common law, as it weighs heavily in their arguments.

[philman_36]

So we're back to my question...

Legally he is a natural born citizen. We are a country of laws and the law is pretty clear on the matter regardless of what birther web sites tell you.

Which law? Is it a positive law or a Constitutional law that does so?

[philman_36]

You can jump on in anytime...

A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.

Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?

[philman_36]

However, YOUR small group of Birthers wants to redefine the term “Natural Born Citizen”.
A most interesting choice of words. What do they want to redefine it from?

[philman_36]

@"Think" Music - 10 minutes long

[thecodont]

For purposes of ELIGIBILITY for any office in the United States Government mentioned in the Constitution, there are only two kinds of citizens:

* NOT “natural born” and “naturalized”; but

* “Natural born citizen” (eligible for POTUS and VPOTUS and every other office) and “citizen” (eligible for every office but POTUS and VPOTUS)

[zeebee]

If the sheriff can prove 0 was not born in Hawaii, or at least that the birth certificate is fake, then the citizenship of his father does not matter.

[Kansas58]

Nobody with any authority agrees with you.

[philman_36]

If the sheriff can prove 0 was not born in Hawaii, or at least that the birth certificate is fake, then the citizenship of his father does not matter.

As long as he was born in the US he is a citizen through his mother's citizenship. He has that by right and I wouldn't deny that to him or anyone else as long as they qualify. Children of illegal aliens don't qualify in my book. His father was here legally on a student visa which was covered under USC 8 and he never intended to become a naturalized citizen.

If the birth certificate is fake then he is in trouble for fraud. That's going to be very hard to prove without access to the actual original documents and Hawaii doesn't look like it's going to help anybody in clearing that up.

The citizenship of his father is the chink in the armor and it all revolves around that as it shows that he isn't a natural born citizen. He can't be anything but a citizen through the naturalization process because of his "alien" (a legal definition) father and is therefore ineligible. That's why all of the new cases are being argued on that point alone!

[philman_36]

And you added me in the “to” list because...???

[philman_36]

Still waiting.

A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.
Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?

However, YOUR small group of Birthers wants to redefine the term “Natural Born Citizen”.
A most interesting choice of words. What do they want to redefine it from?

Nobody with any authority agrees with you.
You must be parched from trying to draw water from that dry well.

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution”.

YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.

Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.

Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.

This is how the system works.

What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?

Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.

It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.

The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution”.

YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.

Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.

Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.

This is how the system works.

What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?

Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.

It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.

The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution”.

YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.

Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.

Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.

This is how the system works.

What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?

Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.

It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.

The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution”.

YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.

Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.

Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.

This is how the system works.

What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?

Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.

It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.

The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.

[thecodont]

Sorry, that was a cc: to you.

[philman_36]

Sorry, that was a cc: to you.
Got it. Just checking.

[cynwoody]

and was in the Senate during the 2008 election when he would have had a chance to say AND do something about the problems all the way back then.

No, he wasn't.

[philman_36]

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
Where? Just you saying it doesn't prove it.

YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.
I haven't tried to "come up with" anything. I'm asking you a question based upon a reply you made and you refuse to answer it.

A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.
Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?

Nothing that you wrote directly answers my question so would you mind doing so.

And here is something that tells me you know all too well what the issue is really about and how it should rightly be viewed.

Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.
See, Congress can only pass legislation that concerns naturalization, not natural born citizenship. You know it and you don't want to admit it as doing so completely disintegrates your whole disingenuous argument.

[cynwoody]

There's always the possibility of "Who is your choice for VP cause they may not be eligible?"

If the Sheriff is wise, he will confine his investigation to the facts and leave the con-law to the Court.

If he does so, nothing he uncovers will be relevant to any candidate's likely VP choice. If he doesn't he will rightly be written off as a wacko.

[thecodont]

See, Congress can only pass legislation that concerns naturalization, not natural born citizenship.

Exactly.

[philman_36]

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.

Here are some words for you by Madison...
@House of Representatives, Rule of Naturalization 3--4 Feb. 1790

Mr. Madison.--When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.
It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make our law to admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by step; but there is no doubt we may, and ought to require residence as an essential.

[philman_36]

If the Sheriff is wise, he will confine his investigation to the facts and leave the con-law to the Court.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

If he does so, nothing he uncovers will be relevant to any candidate's likely VP choice. If he doesn't he will rightly be written off as a wacko.
Many already write him off as a "wacko" so what has he got to lose either way?

[cynwoody]

So how does a child, though born a citizen, become a natural born citizen?

By definition. Duh!

NBC simply means citizen by birthright. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kansas58]

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

[philman_36]

NBC simply means citizen by birthright.
Nice switch and ploy! So does that "right" come through natural law or positive law?

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship:

---

Mr. MADISON.—I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentlemanis eligible to a seat in this House or not; but it will depend on the decision of a previous question,whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, onthe declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he hasforfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of hiselection to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carulina, so far as they can guide us; and wherethe laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far asthey are applicable to the present case.It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.”

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship:

---

Mr. MADISON.—I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentlemanis eligible to a seat in this House or not; but it will depend on the decision of a previous question,whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, onthe declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he hasforfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of hiselection to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carulina, so far as they can guide us; and wherethe laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far asthey are applicable to the present case.It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.”

[cynwoody]

How does two citizen parent prevent a child from growing up to be an marxist loving anti- American?

Excellent question.

There is certainly no shortage of natural born citizens who hate what is good about this country.

Case in point: Zero's neighbor and probable ghost writer, Billy Ayers!

[philman_36]

I've read it many times.

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
I agree that Congress has the ability to define Citizenship when it pertains to naturalization.

Where does Madison specifically say Congress has the ability, or the authority, to define a natural born citizen?

[Kansas58]

Well, Congress HAS done so.

It is water under the bridge.

Congress has an absolute right and duty to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.

In order for Congress to make laws concerning Naturalization, Congress FIRST had to decide who was, automatically, a Citizen from the moment of birth.

[philman_36]

Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship

Congress can only pass legislation pertaining to naturalization!
How can you not comprehend such a simple concept?