Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Actually, the restriction on pardons is only in cases of impeachment. He could pardon himself for anything else.
Me, too. It is one of those apocryphal references that keep getting cited on this topic.
That and this alleged travel ban to Pakistan. Try finding any evidence to support that one.
This whole thing is like one big game of telephone. Someone says, "Maybe Obama was born in Kenya" and the next person says "I'll bet Obama was born in Kenya" and the next person says, "Maybe his mom went there to visit and couldn't get back in time" and the next person says "I heard his mom went there and couldn't get back in time" and so on and so on.
The second comma is a typo. It would make the first clause superfluous. Ahnold could run, and we know he can’t. Also, there were no ‘natural born’ citizens in existence until after the adoption.
I noticed that, too!
US Citizens - born on US soil with no parent being a citizen, 1 parent being a citizen.
Natural born - born of 2 US citizens "
Where is the statute found that makes this distinction? What is the exact definition of 'natural born' and what is the source of that definition?
Read updates at Leo’s web site. All your questions can be answered there. Leo will be on Plains at 9:00Eastern and with Geroge Noory at 1:00Eastern. Rev. Manning is on Plains Radio now.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
'Legal' and 'illegal' are inherently jurisdictional terms.
" They are subject to the jujrisdiction of the governnent of their own country."
When they are in their own country, sure, but when they are in the US they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Unless they are diplomats, Indians subject to tribal law or members of a hostile occupying army. When I was in Germany I was subject to the jurisdiction of the government of West Germany. I had to pay their taxes, obey their laws and so on. Some of the kids from school (DODDS) were children of diplomats with diplomatic passports. When we rode the (public transportation) bus from school I had to pay a fare. If an inspector boarded the bus and demanded my ticket, he could write me a ticket (meaning I would have to pay a fine) if I didn't have one. The diplomatic kids only had to flash their diplomatic passports and the inspector would ignore them. An abuse of diplomatic immunity, albeit minor, but still immunity. That's what subject to the jurisdiction means.
What's the status of legal aliens who plan on becoming a citizen but have not yet taken the oath?"
They are both subject to, unless they are diplomats, etc. I think that children of illegal alien La Raza (hostile occupying force) members are not citizens by birth, but that would be really tough to win.
“Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. The legislative definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was defined as ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”
That’s not true according to the case law I’ve read. I think it is pretty well established that we allow dual citizenship at birth.
“In the Wang Kim Ark vs. U.S., the Supreme Court termed Wang’s citizenship as ‘native born citizen’ and not natural born citizen. You are the confusing specifics of the case with holding or dictum.”
Did the case in question explicitly state that it chose the word “native” instead of “natural” for specific reasons? Or can you point to other cases that define “native” and “natural” differently in the same manner? I doubt it.
You go through a lot of tortured logic to prove that the 14th amendment does not set the standard for who is elligible to be president. We all know that. What you don’t seem to realize is that the 14th amendment sets a standard for people being born in the U.S. as citizens. If you are born as a U.S. citizen, you are a natural born citizen, and therefore elligible to be president under whatever article it is that sets that standard.
Again, there are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Natural born citizens posess the “same level of citizenship” as naturalized citizens, as you say, except as regards elligibility to be president. There is no seperate category of citizenship called “born citizens under the 14th amendment” who are not natural born citizen. If you are born a citizen under the 14th amendment, you are a natural born citizen, because that’s what it means to be a natural born citizen: to be born a citizen.
Then why does it matter who gets to appoint SC Justices?
“The 14th Amendment does not deal with the issue of natural-born citizenship. It was meant to address that fact that slaves were not being treated as citizens in the former Confederate States. The 14th Amendment makes it clear that if you are born in that US and subject to US jurisdiction, then you are a citizen. That’s it. You’re reading more into it than is there.”
The 14th amendment specifies who is a citizen at the time of their birth, and people who are citizens at the time of their birth are natural born citizens. That’s what “natural born citizen” means.
“A natural born citizen requires no STATUTE to achieve their natural born citizenship.”
This is a nonsensical distninction. If a law says you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen. No one can tell you that you are any less a citizen than the magical people who somehow were natural born without any law telling them so.
“We’re still waiting for proof of that ‘born on U.S. soil’ part, also.”
Granted, but that is not at issue in this case.
“In my example, if tourists on a visit happen to birth a child, he is considered a natural-born citizen according to the presidential requirement, what then stops an enemy-country from sending a female here, she has her baby, but takes him back to her country for indoctrination/America hating, etc., only to have him come back here in time to meet the residency requirement and then run for president? Carrying that kind of mindset?? No way, I say this simply cannot be tolerated.”
That would be what we call a loophole. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. Or, better yet, raise the issue during the election. I, for one, doubt the chances of success of some evil genius plotting to steal the presidency from abroad in such a manner. Why? Because the odds that any particular person, especially your border-jumping daughter from an enemy nation, will be elected president is almost zero.
I don't think you are an Obamacrat - I hope you aren't mistaking me for someone else. As far as I can tell, you hold the same position as I do, which is "[that there is no] third category in COTUS or law distinguishing something called 'natural born' citizen as opposed to simply born in the U.S."
And yet that is exactly what we are debating, and why the Founders put requirements in place for the job.
“If Arnold can’t be President because he is ‘only’ a citizen of the United States, neither can Barack or Wong Kim Ark. They are also ‘only’ citizens of the United States.”
For some reason, you seem to believe that people on this thread are claiming that anyone designated a citizen under the 14th amendment is elligible to be president. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that those who are born citizens as defined by the 14th amendment are elligible to be president.
I have a question for you: if, as you say of 14th amendment citizens, “ALL of them can be Senators or Representatives. NONE of them can be President,” who can be president? Do you imagine that there is a third category of citizenship in addition to natural born and naturalized, which I’ll call natural born citizens according to the 14th amendment? There isn’t. There are only two categories of citizenship, and people born citizens under the 14th amendment belong to the one that can be president.
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.