Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

[BP2]

Yeah, but when "words mean things," and you're trying to be precise in the vernacular of "natural born citizen" ...

Emer de Vattel's "The Law of Nations," upon which modern international law and political philosophy is built, has a little higher credibility than Dictionary.com.

Vattel: "natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Dictionary.com: "having a specified characteristic or ability from birth; having the legal status of a citizen; having a position or status from birth; native-born; by virtue of one's nature, qualities, or innate talent: a natural-born musician."

... hey, might as well use Urban Dictionary. There's no entry there yet! Since you're okay with Revisionism -- go for it -- write your own definition while it's still open ...

[BP2]

At best, Sect 301 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act RE-defines the status a CITIZEN (NOT a Natural Born Citizen) as: 1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; or 2) "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..."

So, going by the ABOVE #1 definition, if ANY baby is born on US soil ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), he/she can be president ... and yes, I know this is the Statute you wish to invoke to apply to the Constitutional requirements of President.

... this is HIGHLY dubious and debatable -- go spend some time looking at this thread, as well as various Congressional Committee minutes for the last decade and you'll see what I mean ...

Committee on the Judiciary

Committee on International Relations

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

[SerafinQ]

i see your point, but it is the principle that we must fight for. SCOTUS has made many unconstitutional rulings, but I will not accept that it is just going to be that way.

END THE STATUS QUO in all three branches! :)

[calenel]

"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."

Once again you have it exactly backwards. Before you accuse people of bias or inconsistency you should actually check what they said. The more credible claim is that he was a British citizen at birth. I question their (FactCheck) objectivity and integrity since they are 'owned' by the same organization that 'owns' Obama, namely Annenberg. They can make the British subject claim because they know it doesn't disqualify him, while giving them the appearance of 'fair and balanced', and at the same time discredit any questions about his BC. Before you accuse people of bias or inconsistency you should actually check what they said.

I'll summarize my position for you so there won't be any further mistakes:

• There is nothing in US Law or the COTUS to create a 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' type class of citizen, or to establish a definition for 'natural born' as anything other than 'having a quality or status from birth'.

• I doubt the legitimacy of Obama's posted COLB (It isn't the BC in any case) and even were it proven to be authentic, it is insufficient.

• I agree that he held British citizenship at birth (British law), but, that, however undesirable, it doesn't in and of itself make him ineligible (no Constitutional disqualification).

• What matters is whether he held, or also held US citizenship at birth.
  • If born in Honolulu as claimed then he did, by virtue of being born in US territory (14th Amendment and multiple SC rulings).

  • If born in Kenya, or anywhere else outside of the US, he did not, as his mother was not yet of age to pass US citizenship to her children (1952 statute).

• I hold the position that a parent cannot surrender the US citizenship of a minor child (SC rulings).

• I hold no position on whether any travel on a foreign (Indonesian, Kenyan or British) passport would 'uncitizen' him as I have not researched the question.

• I hold no position on the question of whether you can regain natural born status after surrendering your US citizenship and then becoming naturalized again (all as an adult). I will confidently ASSERT that there will be no existing case law on this, although I have not researched it.

[calenel]

"Vattel: 'natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.'

Again, the plural can be read as more than one citizen who do not share offspring. Father of him, father of that other guy, your mother, my father, McCain's mother, GWB's mother, etc. If it meant 'fathers AND mothers who are BOTH citizens' they would have said that for clarity. And, again, at the time the mothers were not really factored in, women being a protected class with limited rights.

"Emer de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations,' upon which modern international law and political philosophy is built, has a little higher credibility than Dictionary.com."

Dictionary.com's credibility has thus far only been questioned only by those that don't like the dictionary definition of 'natural born.' Is Webster's credible? That is where dictionary.com gets the definition. Vattel's 'The Law of Nations' might have bearing if there wasn't already a body of US Law and case law on the subject that has different conclusions. Vattel's definition of 'natural born' is subsumed into the one supported by US Law - it is a subset, not mutually exclusive.

[calenel]

"At best, Sect 301 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act RE-defines the status a CITIZEN (NOT a Natural Born Citizen) as"

You are trying again to create a imaginary third class 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' again. More accurately, you are trying to base an argument on the existence of this entirely mythical class. It doesn't exist. No argument on this basis will be valid until you prove the existence of this class.

"So, going by the ABOVE #1 definition, if ANY baby is born on US soil ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), he/she can be president ... "

Yes.

"this is HIGHLY dubious and debatable -- go spend some time looking at this thread, as well as various Congressional Committee minutes for the last decade and you'll see what I mean""

Well, at least we've made it from 'not' to 'dubious.' I'm not going to go off and research hundreds of documents (On this site, and and this one but not here (bad link?) on the basis of your assertion that there might be something there to support your claims. You find something specific to respond with. I have supported my claims, you support yours. Also, I have read every single post on this thread, at least thoroughly enough to determine if somebody was just spamming the thread, and I have addressed every claim put forth that opposed my position at least once.

[calenel]

"SCOTUS has made many unconstitutional rulings, but I will not accept that it is just going to be that way."

The most effective way to undo the damage is to control who gets to appoint Justices to the SC, which is your position as well, I know. We aren't going to do that any time soon - we had a major, major defeat in November. The damage may be irreversible.

[SerafinQ]

nothing is irreversible..but it will take time and lots of very hard work..if true conservatives either just give up or hope that someone else will do the work for them, then it wont change any time soon.

Actually, a true conservative would not hope or expect anyone to do anything for them. a true conservative would do all he.she could on their own.

[BP2]

“I have a problem with dual citizenship.”

That’s your perogative. Personally, I don’t think I could shirk off an entire half of my lineage...

But see, this is NOT just about YOU shirking off part of your lineage -- it's about those who could damage our country if they are devious enough and have the financial backing to do so.

Consider THIS story from 2003, from an American Citizen who claims Dual Citizenship with Mexico:

U.S. Citizen in Mexico’s Congress

... Manuel de la Cruz, who was elected on a slate to the Congress’ lower house Sunday, is one of six Mexican expatriates who sought legislative seats from homes north of the border. Their goal, they say, is to give political clout to the millions of Mexican immigrants who send regular financial aid to their home states.

Now, what's to prevent a person like Cruz, with obvious "divided loyalties," to be financed by the Mexican Govt or Drug Cartels to run for President?

In Cruz's case, he was not BORN in the US (nor a "Natural Born Citizen"). However, THIS attempt (introduced by Barney Frank) at amending the Constitution in 2000 would have made it possible:

Constitutional Amendment To Allow Foreign-Born Citizens To Be President

[BP2]

Original intent of the 14^th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 Immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14^th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14^th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14^th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14^th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.

[calenel]

"Actually, a true conservative would not hope or expect anyone to do anything for them. a true conservative would do all he.she could on their own."

Agreed. But what do you hear when you say that? Too often it is [crickets].

[Velveeta]

we don’t demand that in order to be a citizen you must renounce all other national ties...

Sure we do. Have you read the Oath of Allegiance?

The oath of allegiance is:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[AmericanVictory]

As for Senator Kennedy's interest in "safeguard[ing]" the Constitution, see this thread on how the Kennedy damage control machine and the corrupt Democrat pols of Massachusetts made the unconstitutionality of Kennedy's 1982 primary election "unthinkable" after a unanimous Supreme Court initially granted certiorari and remanded.

[calenel]

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was interpreted to exclude 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'"

Foreign diplomats are excluded by treaty. Indians are (were) excluded by treaty. Steinkauler (Perkins v. Elg, 1939) was a dual citizen and yet explicitly eligible to be POTUS:

"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."

Incidentally, no mention of his mother is made; we do not know if she was an American at all, by birth or by naturalization.

One more point: Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land [Article VI, paragraph 2]:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Since diplomats, by treaty, are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US, and Indians, by treaty, are (were) not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US, this affects even Article II, Section 3 and the 14th Amendment. I don't believe that this applies the same way to illegal aliens. They have no protections by Treaty (that I am aware of, anyway). You cannot say 'legal diplomat vs. illegal diplomat' or 'legal Indian vs illegal Indian'. Diplomats have 'Diplomatic Immunity' and Indians (often) had a status that is akin to it (at the time of the 14th Amendment, the subsequent Citizens Act of 1924 notwithstanding). However, aliens do come in both 'legal' and 'illegal' and those are inherently jurisdictional terms. How can we enforce laws where we have no jurisdiction? That is why we cannot touch diplomats, yet fully one third of prisoners in CA prisons are aliens of both the legal and illegal variety.

[calenel]

"Sure we do. Have you read the Oath of Allegiance?"

Only applies to naturalized, not born, citizens. So, you and Tubalcane are both correct.

[Windflier]

It is obviously in our nation’s best interest to ensure that anyone holding the office of President have completely undivided loyalties, either through lineage, or birthplace. It’s simple, and as the Framers proscribed (for obvious reasons).

Interesting info about that Barney Frank bill of 2000. He’s in this up to his neck, and a lot of other bad business too.

My first question, of course, is what on earth was his motivation for bringing such a bill eight years ago?

[CottonBall]

I believe that you should not even get social services, free schooling, or welfare. It's killing us.

California is going banktrupt supporting these parasites. Yet, all the legislature can think of is to raise legal citizens' taxes!

[CottonBall]

I believe that you should not even get social services, free schooling, or welfare. It's killing us.

California is going banktrupt supporting these parasites. Yet, all the legislature can think of is to raise legal citizens' taxes!

[SerafinQ]

the number of peopel that do what is right is not as important as doing what is right...in the end, the masses turned on Christ...should he have aboned wha was right?

I know you and I want the same for our nation...let’s be strong and lead the way..others will follow if patriots like us and like our founders are willing to sacrifie.

[wndawmn666]

calelen: You said:

Before you accuse people of bias or inconsistency you should actually check what they said.

*******************************

I never accused YOU of anything. Perhaps you should take your own advice?