Research Help: Spiro Agnew a Natural Born Citizen?

Sorry if this is in the wrong area, this is my first time posting. I'm a long-time lurker who loves FR and I use what I learn all the time against my friends, some of whom (Unfortunately) are liberal. It's the price of going to a big college. I'm really good about speaking the truth to them and showing how they're wrong, and most of my best arguments come from FR. But there's been one question that one of my friends keeps repeating and while I know he's wrong I can't prove it and it's bugging me.

I know the best researchers are here and I figured someone here has figured out how to set the Obama-bots straight on the issue. I've searched through all the other threads on eligibility and didn't find anything.

My friend says that Spio Agnew (Nixon's VP) proves that you don't need two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Now, I know that the Vice President must meet the same elgibility requirements as the President, and therefore must also be a Natural Born Citizen (12th Amendment). My friend claims that Spiro Agnew's father was a Greek Citizen when he was born. I've tried to find any information to confirm and deny this, but can't find anything. I know he's wrong (he's a Dem... haha) but need help with the proof.

I can't see Nixon choosing someone, and the Republicans electing, a vice president that was obviously unqualified for office.

Is this true? Have one of the researcher's looked into Agnew's citizenship? Did Nixon choose a VP that was not a Natural Born Citizen? And if so, did he hide it like Chester A. Arthur did? I figure that one of the reasons I can't find any information on it might be because he did the "hide your past" thing like Arthur.

Nowhere in that holding did it exclude those born on American soil as not natural born.

Several cases have been posting saying that those born on American soil are natural born, and no Supreme Court case that says otherwise.

And no SCOTUS case have ever said they are natural born by virtue of being born on the soil. In fact, in Minor v. Happersett said that there are doubts about them. And which cases? Those BS illegal alien deportation case(s) presided by some Carter activist judge who cited some illegal alien lawyer without backing up the statement with anything of substance that had nothing to do with NBC clause in the US Constitution. That was total silly dicta, or was it that ignorant Indiana state case that has been taken apart, which they really don't say anything but to fool people? That case was laughable. Or any of the other lower court cases that used obiter dictum of British law about NBS which amounts to nothing? However, we do have a Supreme Court case that unequivocally states who is a natural born citizen in Perkins v.Elg.

Where is your official definition by the courts that “natural born” and “native born” and “citizen at birth” are not synonyms?

I've answer this question about a billion times. If you have been following this for three years, you should have figured out that the courts have differentiated between native v natural born because of the 14th Amendment and the WKA 1898 case. Before that time, "native" and "natural" had the same meaning.

Another poster has repeatedly posted many court cases that show the courts hold that born on American soil makes one natural born. You ignore those.

Lets talk about the ignorance we get from OBots.

They have a complete propensity to ignore the meaning and intent behind the authors for those laws. Instead, they cling to activist judges who substitute their opinions for the meaning and intent behind laws.

As in the intent and meaning behind the natural citizen clause, which is natural law, and not some foreign positive law as is the 'natural born subject' law of England.

You only have to go so far to see the meaning and intent behind the natural born citizen clause when Alexander Hamilton changed the draft of the US Constitution in July of 1787 from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural Born Citizen" after John Jay sent his letter to George Washington that the President needs to have a "strong check" on foreign influences. That means no other allegiance to another power from the day any would be president was born.

This is a big example of a divergence seen first hand from British common law of being born on the soil, or NBS, to Natural Law written in the US Constitution.

In fact, in Minor v. Happersett said that there are doubts about them.

1. Minor vs. Happersett said there are doubts, but did not say they are not natural born, but rather that that case would not address the issue. So from "doubts" you go to "certainty" when the case did not support that.

And no SCOTUS case have ever said they are natural born by virtue of being born on the soil...And which cases? Those BS illegal alien deportation case(s) presided by some Carter activist judge who cited some illegal alien lawyer without backing up the statement with anything of substance that had nothing to do with NBC clause in the US Constitution.

Hm, I don't think there were Carter activist judges in 1866 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, as well as of England.

Or how about 1920 in Kwock Jan Fat v. White

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee [Chinese] and his wife, Tom Ying Shee [also Chinese], he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong,...
*** For failure to preserve such a record for the information not less of the Commissioner of Immigration and of the Secretary of Labor than for the courts, the judgment in this case must be reversed. It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.

And here's a SCOTUS case SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, that mentions Article two, and equates "native born" and "natural born"

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Hm, I don't think there were Carter activist judges in 1866 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, as well as of England.

Which I've addressed before about British common law. It's not natural law, or does it make Obama a natural born citizen.

An 1866 circuit court ruling? Laugh. In Elk v. Wilkins, another Supreme Court case, a foreign national within the United States maintains his allegiance to his country and is not totally under the jurisdiction of the US. Supreme Justice Horrace Gray who wrote the opinion in Elk v. Wilkins of indigenous people born of allegiance to Indian nations within the United States where not completely under the 'subjected to the jurisdiction thereof,

"an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law. "

And Justice Gray further states,

"The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is 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."

Lets rephrase what you cited in your post for accuracy in light of Elk v. Wilkins, 1884:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the [complete and total ] allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together [but completely subjected to one and only one political jurisdiction is a natural born citizen]. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England."

Split allegiances at birth caused by duel citizenships is not natural or do they make one a natural born citizen.

- - - - - -

And this other case you cited. Grin again...

Ummmmm You should look at the facts of the case before you fire away. Here are the facts:

"MR. JUSTICE CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In January, 1915, Kwock Jan Fat, the petitioner, intending to leave the United States on a temporary visit to China, filed with the Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco an application, as provided for by law, for a "preinvestigation of his claimed status as an American citizen by birth."

He claimed that he was 18 years of age, was born at Monterey, California, was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee, then deceased, who was born in America of Chinese parents and had resided at Monterey for many years; that his mother at the time was living at Monterey, and that there were five children in the family, three girls and two boys...."

So what we have here is that the son Kwock Jan Fat and his father Kwock Tuck Lee were both born in the United States and his father was made a US citizen because of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision.

That makes the petitioner a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of the United States and the petitioner was born in the US to citizen parents. And again the Supreme Court say who are natural born citizens because of jus soli and jus sanguinis births.

And here's a SCOTUS case SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, that mentions Article two, and equates "native born" and "natural born"

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

I've seen this a few times, but most of the time, except this time, point to the part "natural born citizen" as the difference cited in the US Constitution. Off course citizens are equal and that they coexist in the same way whether they are native, are naturalized, or are natural.

There is only a single instance in Constitutional law that I know of is that one has to be a natural born citizen to be president. As I said before, by 1964, natural v. native have two different meanings used by the courts.

Native is a person born in country like Wong Kim Ark but was also a subject of China. And Natural Born as I pointed out, and above that you provided, in the Supreme Court case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White...that he is a natural born citizen because of being born in country and born to US citizen parents.

“Historian David Armitage argues that the first sentence of the Declaration was strongly influenced by Emerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations.

Benjamin Franklin said of this book in December 1775 that it was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.”[87] Armitage explains that the primary purpose of the Declaration was “to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States.”

Vattel’s work was the “standard guide” to “the prevailing norms of the law of nations,” and “Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood.”

Thus, if the United States of America were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries had to first make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain.

“The Declaration’s vision of ‘Free and Independent States’ assuming the ‘station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them’ owes an obvious debt to Vattel’s conception of states as free and independent under the laws of nature.”

“Armitage emphasizes that “no writer on the law of nations before Vattel had so consistently—and persistently—emphasized freedom, independence, and interdependence as the condition of states in their relations with one another.”

The Declaration of Independence: A Global History By David Armitage

http://books.google.com/books?id=X2QCAa27Zy4C&pg=PR3&dq=David+Armitage,+The+Declaration+of+Independence:+A+Global+History+(C

Have you ever stopped to consider the similarities between Obama's NBC status and the Clinton's structuring of Whitewater?

Endless convolutions, stonewalling, misleading (at best) statements, hiding of records?

And all for the purpose of being able to prance in front of the cameras and pronounce that all who are pursuing the issue are kooks.

The issue is simple:

Obama has never produced a valid long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, with its chain of custody intact. He could have done this any number of different ways, for the princely cost of (say) $100.

This isn't even the cost of a single place setting at one of those Wagyu beef dinners.

In the meantime, he has ALSO placed completely off-limits all other information typically released by Presidents, including

medical records

high school records and transcripts

college application and / or scholarship information

collage transcripts

graduate school records including writing

information related to foreign travel (think background check)

information concerning his ideological picks such as the fisting czar, Valerie Jarrett, van Commie, and other of his associates such as Irrev. Wright, admitted terrorist William Ayers, convicted felon Tony Rezko.

And there are multiple independent sources from before his time as President, and others since, which openly stated that he was born in Kenya (CBS News, while he was an Illinois state senator), his half-brother in the hut in Africa, his erstwhile illegal-alien aunt...

And his doing things like announcing the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful sound on earth, being able to repeat it without an accent in his mid-40's even though he only lived in Indonesia as a child for a few years; his bowing to the Saudi King; his carrying the book The Post American World and consulting with its author; his refusal to release the White House visitors logs; his unilateral negotiation of the START Treaty, reducing the US nuclear arsenal to a mere 1200 or so active warheads

...his announcement before election that "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"; his Justice Dept. ORDERING the open-and-shut, already-won case against the Black Panthers to not be pursued; his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and a multi-billion dollar FEDERAL loan to Brazil for them to drill, followed by a trip down there where he announced that the US would be their best customer;

...his returning of the Bust of Churchill to the U.K., and ordering the tapes which wouldn't play in the EU as a gift;

...his snubbing of Israel's Prime Minister; his administration's revealing the SEALS attack on bin Laden to the point that they are begging for personal protection from terrorists (Navy SEALS asking for 'protection' ?!! WTF!!)

...yeah, the only POSSIBLE thread underlying all of these (none of which are in ANY dispute whatsoever)...

is that birthers are racist kooks.

Why do you think the founding fathers were concerned over "dual allegiance"? And how curious it is that a man who had served less than 1 full term in the US Senate (and received hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable campaign contributions through internet cred-card donations [*]), did all this?

As Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

Try Occam's razor.

Seriously, what DU operative bought your screen name?

[*] Key example: the $30,000 from THE GAZA STRIP where the contributions were buying Obama T-shirts. Obama's team claimed "We thought the GA stood for Georgia, not GAZA" : but somehow the shirts got delivered properly to the Middle East anyway.

“Why do you think the founding fathers were concerned over “dual allegiance”?”

They weren’t very concerned. The original draft only required residency, and even the final version only required birth in America for the President. And that is what the legal phrase NBC means - born in America. They chose a term with a legal meaning that allowed for alien parents. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t get to change it based on a bad translation of Vattel done 10 years later.

“Obama has never produced a valid long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, with its chain of custody intact.”

If Obama carried his birth certificate in person to every home in America, pinned to OBL’s body, birthers would still reject it. There is NOTHING anyone can do that will convince a conspiracy kook.

“Seriously, what DU operative bought your screen name?”

Seriously, get a life! I’ve got over 12,000 posts on FR, done at a pretty regular rate for 12 years. Birther kooks are only a small part of my posts.

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.