Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
Which is precisely why I stated:
The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.
Back in the 1700's, there really was no such thing (in England or the U.S.) as 1) a wife with a different citizenship as the husband...who (the wife) could pass her foreign citizenship onto their child via the foreign country's own laws...resulting in a child being born with multiple citizenships and therefore multiple allegiances owed. It just didn't happen back then. Additionally, so far as I know, there would have been no such thing as a sovereign military base on foreign soil. Such a base would have been considered conquered territory. Not land that was leased or loaned.
Ultimately, SCOTUS must determined...specifically, if someone born with foreign citizenship and therefore allegiance owed to another country, is a "natural born Citizen" for AII,S1,C5 requirement purposes.
From my research, the framers of both the Constitution as well as the framers of the 14th Amendment would say no.
“Why? Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama’s eligibility?”
You are absolutely correct. we have cowards in all 3 branches of government, who are too afraid to speak the truth and act accordingly.
The current SCOTUS would have to come up with one hell of a legal argument to make Obama eligible since there's nothing to actually prove he is a natural-born citizen. Eighteen Supreme Court justices agreed on a definition that precludes Obama from being eligible. It is a legal precedent that the current court SHOULD be compelled to follow.
“Separate classes of people is exactly what this is and there is no way in 2012 that SCOTUS would craft such a decision in the unlikely event one of these cases ever reaches their desk. Unlikely because the whole notion is so absurd that none of these cases ever get out of the starting gate.” - D68
You are proposing that the constitution be amended, without going through the amendment process. The framers clearly established that there was a difference between aliens, citizens by law and natural born citizens. If you don’t think classes of people should exist in our constitution with regard to presidential eligibility, there is a process to follow to remove the requirement.
As of now, that NBC requirement stands, and the SCOTUS is *REQUIRED* to rule according to that language.
You posted:
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether white or black are citizens by birth – natural born citizens.”
“of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty” does not mean of citizen parents,” no where even close!
Here are a few more quotes from that period:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
“The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to raceor color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)
“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).
“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ... Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision - of course they made none - for the naturalization of natural born citizens.... Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration....” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born....I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Many, many more, but as you said, Mr. Bingham’s statement was read into the Congressional Record without contest.
I am totally on your side. Don’t believe a word the birther sect tell you. They are liars or very misguided. There is overwhelming evidence that if you are born in this country you are a son of the land, a natural born citizen. You should be proud of your dad. When pushed to prove their point, not a single birther can prove that a NBC requires two citizen parents. They are beyond contempt to denegrade any citizen of this country, and there are only two kinds of us - NB and naturalized.
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.