Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Yes, he did...and treated Justice Thomas quite nasty as I remember. Biden along with “Splash” Kennedy were the 2 worst on the committee.
That is a gross misinterpretation of not only the Constitution itself, but also of the uniform naturalization laws established by the first Congress. You are posting as fact, a complete fabrication and apparently for the gazillionth time. There is a book called “The Citizenship Flowchart” by Robert James McWhirter. I think it may be a good place to start reading. The POTUS cannot serve two nations.
bump! Here we go!
Obama's mother could not renounce his U.S. citizenship on his behalf. Renunciation has to be the voluntary action of an adult.
I presume you are specifically referring to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How does this contradict my position? If you look at the first clause "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" it describes two, and only two types of citizen: born or naturalized. Where is this apocryphal 'born a citizen but not natural born' type? Where is the redefinition of 'natural born' that means something other than 'having [that] attribute from birth'? Regarding the second clause,
"Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas.' according to the SCOTUS. From FindLaw
Sorry that I can't cite the exact source, but one of our legal eagles posted data about this definition, with supporting US historical references today sometime. It was on one of the bc threads.
Yet that definition you pulled out of your sleeve is the very crux of your argument. Everything rises or falls based upon the definition of that phrase.
Regards,
The Elk vs. Wilkins decision is the "definitive" word regarding the 14th Amendment. This is because they took into account the intentions of the Framers.
In Elk, the SC specifically stated that birthright citizenship only applied to those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and owing it direct and immeadiate allegiance.
In Wong, they compltely ignored the ruling set down the Elk decision.
Deplorable.
That statement is false. Around the world, parent can and do, quite frequently, emigrate to other countries. Many of them then apply for the citizenship of those other countries. Many of those countries require the renunciation of one's previous citizenship before they confer the new citizenship. Quite often (it may even be a requirement in some countries,) that new citizenship is simultaneously bestowed upon the children.
The U.S. requires immigrants applying for naturalization to renounce their previous citizenship. Customarily, parents seeking naturalization also renounce, on behalf of their children, their children's previous citizenship.
Are you saying that Indonesia wouldn't require (or even allow) the same?
Regards,
Page 307 U. S. 330
"This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:"
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages."
Page 307 U. S. 348
"The opinion does not discuss the right of election of a native citizen of the United States when he becomes of age to retain American citizenship, and does not refer to the repeated rulings of the Department of State in recognition of that right, the exercise of which, as we have pointed out, should not be deemed to be inconsistent with either treaty or statute. We are reluctant to disagree with the opinion of the Attorney General, and we are fully conscious of the problems incident to dual nationality and of the departmental desire to limit them,"
You are begging from your enemy.
They know the facts full well. They are being deliberately misleading.
It is scary how many Freepers woudl agree with that....
And you Sir, are on the money.
It’s like I said, and I think you’ll agree that it’s far worse when the yo-yos are judges.
The Ark case was a tough one, but even so, it should have been decided in accordance with the law, even if the result would have worked a severe hardship, even an unfair one, on Mr. Wong. That’s the role of the courts.
It was Congress’ role, not the Court’s, to find a fair resolution for Mr. Wong, if they dared, which they did not.
It appears to have been fairly well understood by men living in 1781.
It’s only today that folk don’t agree, and then, only because some of them are Democrats, and thus incapable of reason.
Are you talking about this law:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
How am I misrepresenting that? It doesn't mention a requirement for both parents to be citizens, nor does it require that the person be born in the US.
And I don't see how I can be misrepresenting the meaning of 'natural born' as it comes from the dictionary.
Was this Robert James McWhirter fellow a Founding Father? Because several of the legislators in the 1st HoR and Senate that created and passed this tidbit were. Not to mention President Washington, who signed it. I'd guess that pretty much covers original intent.
I am posting fact as fact. No more, no less.
The corrosive effect on our institutions in leaving any doubts about the legitimacy of the very eligibility of a president to serve is enormous; Mr. Obama's behavior in not publishing all relevant documents is foolish and dangerous.
I am particularly concerned about the corrosive effect in the military of having a Commander-in-Chief who may be widely perceived as having questionable legitimacy.
Mr. Obama, please publish all relevant paperwork immediately. It will cost you little, and it will serve our country well.
Contemporary commentary I have read indicates that the phrase was intended to reach the children of anyone who did not fall within the complete and unitary "jusrisdiction thereof", in other words, no competing jusisdiction existed.
This encompassed many classes of individuals beyond those described.
“And he’s fulfilling the rights and responsibilities inherent citizenship as an equal would. He’s a role model for all races. A difficult road it may be, but I’d happily take his place for that honor.”
—
I, also, find it ironic that he is the only black Justice as well as the only one that Obama has made negative comments about. Not to mention the stark contrast in ideologies of these two individuals. One is upright and just in the face of adversity in life. The other is a pretender, a puppet to the individuals who “own” him. Thomas a man of deep moral conviction. Obama seems to change with every light breeze that blows.
It is so interesting that after all that has gone on in the lives of these two men, that Obama finds himself at the mercy of a man whom he does not seem to agree with or respect. I feel our future as well as the future of this nation hangs in the balance of this one decision. Could it be that what happened to Thomas years ago before he was sworn in was a preparing for this very moment?!! I hope and pray this is God’s way of sparing us from 4 yrs of trial and tribulation. God bless this man and be with him in this difficult season. A-men.
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.