Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
Apparently we must go by whatever the King says it is, since not one citizen has standing to challenge what he says.
What if they were just deemed to be citizens under ritual Scottish Law?
Can't you give this cr@p a rest?
Indians were not made Citizens under the 14th either, how about that.
You absolutely correct.
It’s called a treaty
For those of us that live in the real world all you can state for a fact is Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by GWB.
The totality of the rest of your post is prime fodder for the likes of the ACLU, and not worthy of a forum that is known for understanding plain English. You on the other display a talent that could produce several books explaining what three simple words mean, to helps us idiots that already know all too well what they mean.
As a slave, you have NO RIGHTS
Yes and which satisfies NBC.
Already done, no need for any further debate.</sarcasm>
Nancy Pelosie last week proposed that the first amendment be ammended and of course they have actually just ignored the 2nd for years. When I was born, no one not even the police questioned my right to carry a firearm in my car, they really weren't all that comfortable with slapped on the hip firearms but I never got stopped toting a shotgun or rifle.
Younger people will have to take up that argument, I am done, if I don't die soon of natural causes, I imagine the pain pill treatment plan that Zero plans to offer will speed my departure. It will become law, no doubt in my mind.
That wording differentiates between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”
Yes, but a "citizen" could be naturalized. A naturalized citizen is a citizen. So that still makes only two categories.
Both senators and representatives can be foreign born and naturalized. BTW here is a list of current and former US politicians who were born in foreign countries.
Someone had tried to interject French Law and I was pointing out that inequity.
You can not answer that question without quoting hundreds of court decisions and probably Cuban whatever and throw in a little Scottish Law.
Secondly upon further reading your post, I do not think any other country’s laws regarding their citizenship has bearing upon US citizenship or NBC.
This may help you!!!
How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?
Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens:
State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes.
The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
And a worm can become a butterfly, wow!
All this band width being consumed to try and put our non-NBC guy on the ticket, because they put their non-NBC guy on the ticket. Of course our non-NBC guy is much better than theirs. Cool.
I don't care how long the list of reps and senator is. We're talking about eligibility for the office of president. Natural born citizen, two citizen parents at time of birth, eliminates foreigners holding that office. Maybe we still get bad presidents (think Carter, here, among others), but hopefully they don't disdain America and her people, as this jerk does.
There is a foreigner currently residing at 1600 Penn'a Ave. Foreign because he is steeped in anti-Americanism (frank lloyd wright, his parents and grandparents, formative years spent in indonesia, moslem identity, this is not an exhaustive list of reasons why he is foreign).
It doesn’t need to be, but absent common sense, it surely will be, if it is ever to become settled. The more likely case is that parties will still certify the qualification of their candidates. Since the courts have decided already that citizens have no standing to inquire, I submit the question has already been decided. CW II might change it, but I doubt that scenario.
Laws like Votes, depend on who examines them.
And it will take a Constitutional Amendment.
But of course we both know that none of this matters one whit because the Ruling Class, and we do have one merely obey the laws that are convenient. I was just a kid in high school when I began to wonder what made our country any different than say Russia. My limited experience concluded that we were greatly different only because our government was smart enough to share more of the wealth with the little people, nothing more. (Well maybe a little more)
“.....US Law however, is based on Common Law, not the “Laws of Nations” “
Common law is law “by tradition.” The US uses Statuate Law....”written law.” The Common Law of the British Isles is not common to the US.....except its use as one of many transitional references for the US as it built up its own body of laws, and judicial review decisions.
Vittal’s Law of Nations/Natural law is a treatise on legal concepts, using natural rationals/logic as a basis for legal thought. Like some European jurists, the US Constitutional Convention delegates used this book as a reference in writing the US Constitution. They also used Blackwood’s Commentary on Common Law as a reference. Ideas from both sources were used. Not one to the exclusion of the other as some would recently, in the Obama era, have it.
It is quite evident from both the term “NBC” as opposed to common law’s term “NBS”, and by the body of USSC decisions, Minor, et al, that Vittal’s term NBC and it’s definition was the one used by the Founders in writting Article II eligibilty requirements because it met their basic concerns about a future President’s loyality....which British common law’s term “NBS” didn’t.
Insisting on the British Common Law term NBS is a red herring used by Obama apologists to add confusion to the question of Obama’s basic eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. In fact it has no bearing on Article II eligibility requirements. Obama, born to a foreign national, is ineligible to serve as POTUS........Is he a citizen?.... probably....Is he a Natural Born Citizen?.....no way in hell......
“IMO the Founders intended the normal, common law definition of legal terms unless they explicitly state otherwise.”
So why did they use the term Natural Born Citizen instead of Common Law’s Natural Born Subject? Seems like they were “explicitly stating otherwise....”
“The debate over Rubio’s eligibility could be used to a debate of Obama’s eligibility.
A silver lining...”
Like Romney’s Ma. Health Care Law, it only serves to take the issue off the table. I ain’t buying it. Rubio is not eligible same as Obama.......Article II ineligibility.
actually, I was pointing people to it in post #31
That is an interesting question. Mind you, it wouldn’t be unprecedented - Charles Curtis was a member of the Kaw Nation (born prior to the passing of the 14th Amendment) and was elected Vice-president in 1928.
“The fact his father was a British subject was publicly known when he ran for Vice-President..”
Not so, his father became a naturalized citizen 7 years after little Chester’s birth......Chester made a conscience effort to hide this fact and evade the Article II eligibility question ‘til his death.....
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Sorry about the formatting mess up - it looked fine in preview.
It's not the proper role of the government to be sharing the wealth with people large or small. It is to get out the way and create conditions for people small and large to create their own wealth!
If you are not being sarcastic, you should be zotted on the spot.
He usually could be found on the Civil War threads calling Southerners Nazis, democrats and traitors. He got zotted for being a garden variety liberal troll.
Good, I’m glad all that is cleared up. Rubio was born on US soil. Period, end of story.
Just like any Hispanic who waddles into a San Diego hospital to birth her child or the Korean moms that visit on 3-month shopping visits, their children are American citizens. Can’t say I like that much latitude, these days, but thems the rules, like it or not.
Eligibility for election to a federal office doesn’t change the equation.
That was not my point. Whether you like it or not the government considers all wealth and property as its own. The take property any time they want, they tax as they want, they make literally 10's of thousands of laws and regulations and you can be assured that you are breaking one or several of them without you knowledge.
In my time we have lost so many freedoms that I could not list them, but the government has done it a little at a time, we used to call it creeping socialism, but the communists have always been there, pushing their agenda. I had first hand knowledge of the Communist cells working to undermine our war effort, they did not leave after the war, they just moved into congress and the courts and the schools, waiting patiently for such a time as this.
The current election has offered up a grand illusion for us to pretend like we had a say in who was selected, I could have saved you all that TV time and aggravating web posts that availed nothing, because anyone with any experience with the GOPe knew who the nominee would be. How like the communist party elections with only one candidate, except for the show, which of course was good for the media coffers.
We now have a fake choice between Marxism and Socialism, good luck because all the old patriots are too old to fend off the child of the 70's.
Look to God for your solution, not a politician.
That’s easy.
Americans are not subjects of anyone. We’re citizens sharing in the corporate sovereignty.
Bite me; punk!
perhaps you can clear up a vexing mystery for us, just what is the meaning of the word “is?”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You’re too ignorant to understand if I explained it to you. Move on down the road fanatic.
Just ignore him; he’s ignorant.
Actually Insane John is a natural born citizen because his American born parents were stationed overseas and serving the United States Armed Forces in Panama at the time John was born. I recall grade school in Ramstein 1966. My sister was born there and they clearly taught us that she had all rights including the right to be President.
Now that is a more logical and intelligent post than those declaring Rubio is not NBC but have no explanation why Obama is still reigning as Commander in Chief.
By the reality on the ground...that neither SCOTUS or the Congress has taken action to throw Obama out of presidency. Those are the only institutions who have the power to do so.
Obviously Obama presidency is NOT an illegal act since Congress or SCOTUS have taken no action to so declare. Therefore your post saying condoning one legal act because of another does not apply here.
In my mind he is not NBC unless his authentic BC is available for public to see. But I do not make the rules. It is upto the duly elected congress or the SCOTUS. If those two do not take action, we are stuck with Obama as “legitimate” NBC.
>If those two do not take action, we are stuck with Obama as “legitimate” NBC.<
.
And to think that this country might be permanently damaged or destroyed by a possible foreigner simply because government failed to act in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Constitution that they swore to uphold.
We’ll be the laughing stock of world history especially after all the bragging we have done about how great a constitution we have and how we are the greatest nation in history.
Only Congress has the power to oust Obama. Majority of the House. Two thirds of the Senate. Not going to happen.
However, SCOTUS might be relevant as to whether he can run again. But, as I've explained up thread, I strongly doubt they'll act.
They went bad a few years ago. It’s not the Human Events that was a Reagan favorite.
“Rubio’s parents became permanent residents under US Law the second they set foot on US soil and requested asylum.”
Rubio’s parents came here before Castro’s revolution and the resulting asylum law.
In your example it is important to notice that young Steinkauler was a natural-born US citizen. His parents became US citizens one year prior to his birth.
You cannot extrapolate his case to all persons born in the USA and claim that all native-born citizens are eligible for US presidency.
Oh. That could make a difference. Were either of his parents US Citizens in 1971? Had his parents applied for permanent residency and had they requested Asylum?
You have complicated the picture my FRiend. I may have to reassess my argument.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon....
Only if you don't know, I understood the bent ones explanation apparently you didn't.
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.