Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
this 1790 act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause you quoted EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”. [Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795]
It is hard to do for we humans, but I dare say Justice Thomas is more motivated by the Constitution and his deep love for that and this nation than he is motivated by the asshat who maligned him for personal empowerment with sicko liberals.
What do you suggest?
Thanks.
So if a child is born on American soil to an American parent and a foreign parent (as my children are) then these children are ineligible to serve as president and are thus categorized as second-class citizens?
So I can serve as President but my California-born children cannot because their mother is a legal Ukrainian immigrant? If my children cannont aspire to the presidency as their father can, then my children are second-class citizens.
That's a crock and everyone knows it. We do not have second-class citizens in this country. No court will, in this day and age, designate millions of American-born citizens as second-class on the basis of the allegiance of their parents.
Again, you people are making stuff up.
Chapter 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1130, pg 8) says (and yes, I know it addresses children born abroad):
The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.”
This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
“CLANG>>>CLANG...NOW HEAR THIS....The Supremes will order the electors to verify the candidates qualifications before they vote yea or nae....this will stop the process and force the electors to do the job that created the positions they now hold....it is not a ceremonial job but one of substance and if they certify any candidate who later proves to be unqualified ,they are subject to the laws of treason .”
Do you think that SCOTUS will supply a stone carved definition for ‘Natural Born Citizen’tommorrow. This a fundamental issue that Leo is appealing.
To get there would take more time and a full court hearing probably. Without that definition the electors can play fast and lose with the standard again.
Pretty sure it doesn't exist. The argument for that interpretation doesn't rely on US law, but on what the Founding Fathers understood to be Blackstone's understanding of the British concept of "natural born subject."
Thanks.
A Supreme Court demand that Obama (or any other candidate) be qualified by examination of the long form BC, and all other associated documents in question like his pasport records, financial aid applications, travel records, etc. After O's team submits the documents for validation, subpoena the governor of Hawaii for the vault copy for comparison.
Anything less will be followed by a SC decision finding him in Contempt of Court and refusing to acknowledge Obama as President. That lays the ground for the Supreme Court to overturn every single law Obama signs.
I can't think of anything better as we are running out of civilized ways to resolve issues with the Left. But we have our DUTY to the Constitution.
Indeed. A day of days.
A defining time for the Law, COTUS and SCOTUS.
From Leo's excellenet explanation [http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW] :
Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem ... Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.
People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized. Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.
Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).
But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”. At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.
The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” :
...
‘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…since as before the Revolution.’
...
The common law is not our national law. Our national law is the Constitution. We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.
And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible. The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion ... Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:
“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject. [**26] Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.
United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)
The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1. For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.
If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”. If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.
... naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.
But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that. The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”. And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.
But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law. The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.
Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama - although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was. I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law. There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.
The first of which is precedent. In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.
And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:
“The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”
You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp
Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5. This was made clear by Madison’s article:
“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006
“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.
Damn....that would likely be worse than Obama!
PING
PING
The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.
Maybe now, then agan, maybe not.
Copied verbatim from the US Constitution ‘transcript’ located at the U S National Archives website:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I have the Constitution hanging on the wall in my living room and there is no comma in that position.
It reads:
No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president....
There is no comma after "States" and before "at" in the copy on my wall.
Exactly. McCain, Hillary and Obama, the entire Senate, knew that McCain was not a natural-born citizen, so they tried to make it so by erasing the Constitution with a non-binding resolution as was shown in that article I listed before.
Had there been no doubt of Obama or McCain's natural-born status, neither of them would have been headed down the road of legislating the issue. They knew, and they knew back in April, 2008 and tried to act on it.
This alone is proof that if there was no legal grounds to expel either of them, they both wouldn't have been screwing with the Constitution at such a late stage in the game, during their own campaigns. They knew, and that's the bottom line.
If you go to the forums listed at the bottom of that article - http://grou.ps/zapem/wiki/23460 You will see the entire process through the Senate and the lawyers they dragged in, the entire sourced testimony. It's quite alarming the time spent on this issue if it was a moot issue.
U.S. Citizenship Law and Overseas Americans
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=80
All the work on http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/ is a distraction and waste of time.
It doesn’t matter if the “certification of live birth” is real or fake. Even if it is real it is no proof that he was born in HI or of his “natural born” Citizenship.
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.