Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
It is much simpler. A baby is born. Is that baby a legal U.S. Citizen at the time of birth? If so, he is a natural born citizen. If he is not a citizen at birth and obtains citizenship at a later date, he’s a naturalized citizen. Since Obama did not do the latter, he’s either a natural born citizen or he’s an illegal alien.
ANYONE born on sovereign US soil is a citizen without qualification.
I refer you to post #11 from John Valentine, who can steer you toward the case law regarding this issue...
“Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”
>>> "That is most certainly NOT in the U.S. Constitution.
Some people believe it is so because of a common misreading of the 14th Amendment due to a misunderstanding of the holdings of the Wong Kim Ark case. The fact is, this misreading of the 14th turns the amendment straight onto its head, and gives the Amendment precisely the opposite effect of that intended by its authors, Congress, and the ratifying States.
NO case heard in the Supreme Court has EVER held that birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment to the children of people in the United States illegally. Or legally, for that matter, if not admitted as immigrants." <<<
11 posted on Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:02:29 AM by John Valentine
My take on the article was the same as yours. The author made an effort to report the facts and keep personal bias out. I appreciate that — so many these days are tragically incapable of keeping themselves out of the articles. However, as you mentioned, once again the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born” citizen is glossed over by the Obama advocates. That makes me mad. They are word-playing and they know it. It is deceptive and irresponsible.
'a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years'
"This citation proves that because Obama was NOT born in America, and his mother was under 21, and his father was not a US citizen, he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and therefore cannot serve as President."
Well, since that is essentially my position, I'm not sure I understand your question. Aside from the fact that 14+5=19 (not 21) (hey, blame the public schools) (I'm kidding), IF Obama was born 'outside the geographical limits of the United States' then he can NOT be a citizen unless his father was an American, which he was not.
"That is what Judge Thomas and the other members of the Supreme Court will decide and John McCain will become President. Whether Biden or Palin will serve as VP will be up to the Supremes too. (I hope it’s Palin.)"
The COTUS is pretty clear on the POTUS and VPOTUS Electoral College votes being totally separate. It would be pretty difficult to prove Biden knowingly participated in any fraud, no matter what we might ourselves believe, and the Rats clearly have no shame. Biden is (sadly) going to be the VP, almost certainly. Could be McCain/Biden. Could be just Acting President Biden, too, if it goes to the House and they refuse to choose their only alternative, McCain (Sit On Hands scenario). That would be the gift that keeps on giving, so I doubt they (Rat controlled House) would do that.
Your simplistic reading ignores the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". While you in your mind might think otherwise, this is no small thing.
If you were correct, then the wording could just as well be “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
But, pleae take note: That's NOT what the authors wrote, and for good reason. That's NOT what the authors meant, and its not what the ratifiers understood. YOUR view of this matter is the least relevant one of all.
It is a travesty when yo-yos decide that they can ignore what was meant and substitute their own later-day understandings for the understandings of the consitutional authors, even if those yo-tos happen to be judges. In fact that's even worse. And that's exactly what has happened here.
Now, you may THINK what ever you may want to think, and in fact what you think may be the common perception. In this case it is.
It doesn't change the fact that you can only get there by ignoring, twisting, and subverting the Constitution. Hopefully, one day it will be upheld when a case of first impression reaches the court. It hasn't happened yet in the history of the country. Your bent interpretation has never NEVER been tested in the highest Court in the land.
After reading through the statute a couple of times, and reading historical references posted by others, it's apparent to me that what's wrong here, is that the US is lacking clarity in its citizenship laws and definitions. Not to mention the fact that the Natural Born Citizen phrase and intent is not agreed upon by all.
We obviously need some clarity on all of this. Thankfully, this may finally be taken up by the Supreme Court and sorted out. The sooner, the better too. Times a'tickin' and January 20th looms.
bttt
But NOT neccesarily NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The only legal distinction is that Natural Born citizens ARE eligible to be POTUS, citizens are not.
...the wording could just as well be “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
But, pleae take note: That's NOT what the authors wrote, and for good reason. That's NOT what the authors meant, and its not what the ratifiers understood.
It's interesting that you single that phrase out in your post, John. I was just making a point about that phrase to another poster, though I'm not sure that we intended the exact same thing in our communications.
I referred the poster to your post #11.
But NOT neccesarily NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The only legal distinction is that Natural Born citizens ARE eligible to be POTUS, citizens are not.
Went and had a quick look, but I’ve just noticed the clock. I’ll have to pick it up tomorrow. G’night.
Should I call you Mr. Big or is it Mr. Monkey?
In either case, the mistake you make is the same. You substitute your own, present-day, interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jusrisdiction thereof" in lieu of the meaning attributed to the phrase by those who wote it.
This ia a BIG mistake, because you render the phrase meaningless in the process.
In the minds of the congressional aauthors of the 14th Amendment, and in the minds of those State legislators who voted during the ratification process, the importance of this phrase was SPECIFICALLY to exclude the children of foreigners who were not citizens. You also overlook years and volumes of legal scholarship on this issue, and that makes you not very credible.
The Wong Ho Ark case extended the coverage of the 14th, quite without cogent reason, to the children of RESIDENTS, but it has NEVER been extended to the children of just ANYONE.
Your comments reveal you to be essentially ignorant of the subject matter, which is quite ok; it is the natural state of everyone before they acquire information. However, prior to making declarative statements that are incorrect and wrong-headed, it is usually better to do some research.
Here's a place to start:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/misinterpreted.html
On the other hand, Philip Berg, who has also filed suit with the Supreme Court, does say that B. Hussein Obama is not a US citizen, on several grounds, including:
It seems to me that the Indonesian matter is conclusive - Barack Hussein Obama is today a citizen of Indonesia.
Am I reading too much into this, or does this law mean that Obama is not even a citizen of the US?
If someone, anyone, can show me a legitimate source that contradicts my position I will happily acknowledge it and convert. Thus far it has not been forthcoming.
If born in Kenya, he is an illegal alien. In that case he shouldn't have been elected Senator as that requires citizenship.
If someone, anyone, can show me a legitimate source that contradicts my position I will happily acknowledge it and convert. Thus far it has not been forthcoming.
The legitimate and primary source is the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, and a correct reading of it which should not be hard to do if one is of rational mind and understands the English language. To me its meaning is crystal clear. Obama is not a natural born citizen. And, as Berg states in his suit, not even a U.S. citizen. His whole presidential election is based on fraud and deception.
Joe Biden....... Didn’t he chair the Judiciary Committee when Justice Thomas going through the confirmation process?
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.