Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
“People who WANT it to be true have repeated their convoluted arguments ad nauseam, apparently believing that enough repetition will MAKE it true. It won’t.”
Here, here!
I have a question for those who can see into the minds of the Founders and the framers of the 14th amendment. If they were well aware of the danger to our Republic of children born with split loyalties, why didn’t they exclude them from citizenship at birth? That is to say, why go through the trouble of creating a hidden third class of citizen (citizen from birth but not natural born) when you can simply come out and say, “Hey, we don’t want these people to be president!”
“(1) American Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ?!”
Heck, why go through all that math. This is simpler:
Birth on U.S. Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
“Your agenda is becoming plainer with every one of your posts. You are here to obfuscate and sow doubt and play obamanoid agitprop. No need to give you any further attention.”
Ah, the open-mindedness of the internet. Don’t you love it?
“sheesh, my kids were born by caesarian section, does that make them ineligible for POTUS?”
If the Constitution says “No person except those of woman born shall be eligible to the Office of President,” then yes. I forget.
“... and then to top it off, the LEGAL Reference YOU use to define ‘natural born citizen’ is Dictionary.com”
The essential core of the law is not historical context, as you seem to imply. There is a deeper level. Ultimately, all legal arguments must come down to semantics, since laws are written in words. There’s no escaping it.
If you say, Birth on US soil = Natural born citizen, then two terrorists could come here give birth to a child and that child could grow up to be President. That is wrong.
The child would be a citizen, but not a “natural born” citizen because the parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
Now if two persons come here and become citizens, then give birth to a child, then that child can grow up to be President because the child would be a “natural born” citizen.
“reinstall the Stamp Act?”
Where are these new carbon tax ideas coming from? Obama’s going to make it happen..
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/farmers-panic-about-a-cow-tax/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0228/p04s01-wogi.html
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20081201/FREE/312019971
"after all of your grand-standing, quoting Acts and Rulings that deal with naturalization, and such phrases as 'born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,' seemingly ACKNOWLEDGING that Obama was born OUTSIDE of the US"
I have never held any other position than that Obama may have been born outside the US. Even so, my original belief was that that did not matter as his mother was an American. I have since learned - long before this thread - that US Citizenship at birth is not - quite - so automatic, and that Obama may very well not qualify as his mother was of insufficient are to meet the residency requirements. That is the entire history of my position. The 'Acts and Rulings' that I have quoted do not just deal with naturalization, but also citizenship at birth. If you want to see grandstanding, look in the mirror.
"hanging your hat on phrases like "is declared to be a citizen of the United States," VS something with TEETH, like 'is declared to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States' -- which we NEED, but which doesn't exist "
I maintain that there is no difference between 'born...citizens' and 'natural born citizens' in the Law or COTUS. I have supported my position with SC rulings that show that the SC has historically agreed with that definition, comments from former Attys. General to that end, and so forth.
"referencing your primary arguments from the 14th Amendment which was ratified by LESS than 3/5 of the 37 State Legislatures at the time it was codified, instead of 3/4 of the states as REQUIRED by the Constitution (now that's a completely different discussion there)""
So, now, the 14th Amendment doesn't count any more? As I recall, the 14th Amendment was included in some of your" arguments.
"ignoring the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): 'Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth'"
I am not ignoring it so much as declaring it to be irrelevant. Dual citizenship is not an issue. British law has no bearing. I do not dispute that Obama likely holds or held British citizenship which turned into Kenya citizenship. I dispute that that automatically disqualifies him from being POTUS. I dispute that, if born in the US, he does not hold US citizenship from birth as well. I am fully cognizant of irregularities in his documentation. I hold the position that if he was born in Kenya he is not a natural born citizen of the US and most likely is an illegal alien and is not Constitutionally eligible for the office of Senator (non citizen) OR President (non natural born citizen).
"intermingling 'Jus soli' variations of 'Citizen,' 'Native Born Citizen,' 'Natural Born Citizen,' 'Citizen by Birth,' etc, while picking 'Jus sanguinis' parts of Acts that clearly state things like: 'provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.' Pulling parts from different Act from different eras"
Nope. My argument is that all those 'Jus soli' variations are just that, variations of the same thing. That has yet to be refuted. My position on 'fathers' conditions like the one you mentioned is that they were clearly intended to mean 'citizen fathers' where not explicitly so stated, but that gender neutral language has been substituted since at least the 14th Amendment. I don't think that argument has been disputed thus far, and I have only included it to avoid confusion because 'father' does appear in many of the older laws and it is Obama's father that was the alien. Gender based distinctions simply do not any longer apply.
"blowing off State Dept's FAMs, saying they're 'just a Manual,' even though they use strong legal references to carry out the nation's Constitutional and Statutory Immigration actions. People are denied or granted citizenship based upon the FAM's EVERYDAY."
Are you claiming that that referenced manual (which, incidentally, uses the language 'may not') is superior in the Law to SC rulings? If people are being denied solely on the basis of that document then they have very good cases and should pursue them. Where that manual references other work, then arguments are based on those other works, and not on the manual.
"minimizing that Congress has tried to change the NBC issues of Article Two 26 times in the past 140 years, and never getting it out of Committee"
I haven't directly referenced this point before, but since you asked: So What? To what purpose? Were they trying to make more people eligible, or were they going the other way and trying to make fewer people eligible? They failed in no small measure because you can't amend the Constitution that way. It would have to make it a lot further than 'out of committee.'
"knowing that before Chester Arthur, who almost surely & fraudulently hid his dual citizenship status while he was VP, the last 'foreign born' President and VP help office more than 170 years ago"
There has never been a non white (except maybe Lincoln who might have had a melungeon grandmother, a 'fact' that he almost surely and fraudulently hid), female, openly gay, Mormon, etc., President either, but that doesn't mean there never will be. I am not responsible for any fraud that Arthur may have committed, nor do I cite it as precedent for anything.
"shooting down historical works our forefathers, like Vattel and Blackston, would have certainly used in their law practice and/or as reference to construct wording for the Constitution ... the SAME references that Justice Thomas uses to help interpret the Framer's actions"
I didn't shoot down those works, I simply stated that "All these 'Natural Law' and 'English Common Law' arguments are tenuous at best." That would be because there are existing US laws that take precedence. That does not mean that Blackstone will never have any bearing on anything. It simply means that it is not superior to actual US Law, where such law exists.
"and then to top it off, the LEGAL Reference YOU use to define 'natural born citizen' is Dictionary.com"
Yep. You got me. I used a dictionary to find the definition of a term. This undermines my entire argument, and clearly you are right, because I used a dictionary. Even though Dictionary.com's definitions come from Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English and Random House Unabridged Dictionary we still can not say that words actually mean what the dictionary says they do. Uh huh.
And I’m no lawyer, but I tend to agree. However, what we think matters not. Unfortunately, what the politicians think matters too much.
That answer is very simple:
Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hedgecock and the rest all stand to make MASSIVE REVENUES in book sales, ad deals, show ratings and public appearences at $50 a pop, because conservatives will use them as a vent to voice their impotence for the next eight years.
And conservatives will eagerly pay for every book and ticket, because they're sheep, too.
And Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hedgecock and the rest KNOW IT!!!
Conservatives = suckers.
You're right -- but if the Senate set the bar this high for the military [McCain] -- both parents being American citizens and birth on an American military base -- then should the bar be lower for the non-military???
I base my opinion of Polarik (Ron Polarik, PhD) work on some personal background that I have in electronic documents, fonts and such. That being said, I do not claim to be an expert, and I do not rely on Polarik’s work to support my position regarding Obama’s eligibility, only Obama’s credibility. I do find credible the evidence and analysis that Polarik has done, and at least he is around to answer questions about it right here (unlike this P.A. Madison that has been repeatedly cited).
The Senate did not say those were the minimum requirements. There were factual errors (location of McCain's birth) in the assertions in any case.
RESOLUTION 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
What did they "understand" and when did they "understand it"???
As terrorists they would technically be 'hostile occupying aliens', or at least I would consider them so. There are other excluded classes. I won't argue for the right of a terrorist's children to be eligible for POTUS, or even a citizen. I have previously mentioned thet La Raza would count as a hostile occupying army and that hteir children are not POTUS eligible. I know how ridiculously difficult to win such a case would be as well. Location of birth is critical. Status of parents as diplomats, Indians, or invaders is critical. Citizenship of parents is not.
Sorry, should have read “or even citizens” and “their”.
Have you read Leo Donofrio’s research and statements on this? I believe Leo is correct. But we will know in time. Monday will be very interesting!
Oh, I get it.
FactCheck is only credible when they say Obama’s birth certificate it legit.
When they admit he was a British citizen at birth they are not credible.
Makes perfect sense.
I have read Donofrio's case. I don't think he's right, but I won't mind being wrong should it come out that way.
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.