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.

[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.