Posted on 08/19/2015 2:18:25 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Your clarification of an issue clouded by many for over a century has a few problems, though the rejection of citizenship for those born on our soil without reference to the allegiance of their parents is correct.
“Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship.” That statement is misdirection, though almost certainly not by InterceptPoint who probably trusted pundits who are talented projecting confidence in their scholarship. The Constitution does not contain term definitions (there is but one which was to address the change from monarchy to republic), by design, according to James Madison. That attribute of the Constitution seemed so obvious to its framers that it was not easy to find the citation. I found it on page 37 of Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny though there are many authorities who cite the requirements for our President implying the common-law, U.S. common-law and not Blackstone’s common law, is simply understood.
The reason for not including definitions in the Constitution is similar to a seeming obvious exiom accepted by astronomers. Looking at spectra of billion year old stars must assume that the laws of physics are invariant over time or the physical interpretations are meaningless. Interpreting the meaning of the Constitution whose framers believed it was founded upon Natural Law, laws that would remain valid forever, knew that language is always changing. To remain valid the Constitution must be interpreted in the language familiar to its framers.
This is clearly stated by Chief Justice Waite when he established the meaning of natural born citizenship, the definition used in Wong Kim Ark to distinguish between the naturalized citizens created by the 14th Amendment and natural born citizens created by God when the Constitution required that class of citizenship for our chief executive. After 1776 most children born on our soil were born to citizen parents, parents who chose individual sovereignty rather being subject to a monarch, whose power is inherited, and, in England, is born to at least one alien parent (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man).
In Article 1 Section 8, our framers designated Congress as the authority with the responsibility to define naturalized citizens. A citizen defined so by Congress is not a natural born citizen. Even a citizen defined as naturalized at birth is defined by men, a changeable definition, and not a citizen by nature or “Natural Law”. Our framers felt that the position of President was too important to the safety The Republic to risk permitting a child born to parents whose sole allegiance was not to our land and Constitution. in the words of the original sponsor for the 14th Amendment, Congressman John Bingham, abolitionist and Judge advocate for the conspiracy trial of Lincoln’s assassins, in one of his speeches to the House explaining the amendment:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”
This is why Barack Obama never claimed to be a natural born citizen. On Obama’s web site “Fight the Smears” he explained,
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Barack, as he himself explained, was born a British Subject. He didn’t accept the validity of the U.S. Constitution, and said so. He considers it if historical interest, but “...it doesn’t allow me to do the things I believe people need”. Congress and the courts should have challenged him but were largely afraid to lose their positions, income, and be attacked, as was Congressman Nathan Deal from Georgia, who did ask for proof of eligibility and was forced resign by the IRS and Justice Department conspiring with the House Judiciary Committee.
Birthright citizenship is incorrectly conflated with “native, or natural born citizens”. Birthright citizenship as it is usually misused means naturalized at birth. Why this is wrong should be pretty obvious to anyone these day. Children of parents whose allegiance is to Sharia law live in our nation. Their parents never had and never could have had, as observant Muslims, sole allegiance to our nation build upon individual sovereignty. Their children travel to the Middle East for kill our soldiers. The same would have been true had the child of Royalists become president when the nation was a toddler.
There are natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. All natural born citizens are citizens but naturalized citizens are not, by definition, natural born citizen. 14th Amendment citizens are naturalized - by definition.
I was more concerned with the political obfuscation of who was eligible to the presidency. Obama is showing us why allegiance is so important, but so far appears not to have created a revolution - yet. This is the time to really understand who we want as citizens because it was always the intention of our framers that our representatives create an “Uniform Rule for Naturalization.”
“What to the Federal courts say? Not just SCOTUS but the various Circuits as well.”
Screw the black-robed fascist courts. The courts are not the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.
The Constitution gives the federal US House the power to limit the court’s jurisdiction, cut off the court’s money and impeach judges. The House has the final word about a law’s constitionality, provided members exercise their rightful authority.
But since you clearly have some insight into the natural born citizen issue I'm very anxious to hear your opinion on the citizenship status of Ted Cruz (My #1 candidate) and his eligibility to hold the office of Presidency.
Thank you Intercept point. Let me recommend the best source I’ve found for citizenship issues, certainly a body of legal knowledge that has become very relevant with Trump taking on both parties and his enemies coming out of the woodwork.
puzo1.blogspot.com is a site managed by a modest New Jersey attorney who did some graduate work in international law but who has searched deeply and honestly for legal guidance on eligibility issues and takes on all serious comers legally to clarify the issues. Apuzzo has gradually become one of the nation’s authorities on citizenship.
Even Mark Levin, from whom I’ve learned lots about our judicial system is surprisingly sloppy about the law, citing the 1790 Naturalization Act as the reason John McCain was a natural born citizen; the 1790 Naturalization Act, Session II, Chapter 3, page 103 was entirely rescinded in 1795, with “natural born citizen” replaced by “citizen”, probably because Washington or Madison, more likely both of them realized that if congress could interpret the Constitution what does it mean for the Constitution to assert that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction? Who needs a Supreme Court if Congress can reinterpret the articles and amendments without the need for an amendment? No law (Congressional Act) after 1790 ever tried to interpret the Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen. But Congress, as provided for, did define naturalized citizens - many times!
Mr. Apuzzo has submitted to the Supreme Court, having taken the traditional path through local, state and federal appeals courts, exposing the ignorance or avoidance as he went. His case was not accepted at the Supreme Court when the two Obama appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor refused to recuse themselves, even though they stood to lose cushy jobs if Obama was ruled ineligible. There needed to be four justices wishing to hear the Apuzzo (Kerchner) case, and without Roberts, one can only guess that the three originalists, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were joined by none of the others.
Mr. Apuzzo wrote a careful article and participated in an adult dialog (no name calling allowed, only legal arguments), the second most recent titled “Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President”. There is no point in my repeating the points he makes since he argues with a rigor I have learned to appreciate, particularly as I find the logical flaws, intentional or not, of so many presumed experts on both sides of the issue.
Mr. Apuzzo almost always quotes his sources, unlike so many Obots, one of whose favorite tactics is to call his deniers names and the cite a dozen or so obscure cases, knowing that few would have the time or inclination to check. I have often checked, learning much in the process, and seeing how often the precedent cited was irrelevant. These people who want to control immigration, as will as dictate leaders are smart liars; the end justifies their means.
I too like Cruz’ position on most issues, and am inclined to believe, since I have no doubt about who Ramsay, Marshall, Jay, Washington, Wilson, Paine, Waite, Gray, Evans-Hughes, and almost all other framers and justices considered natural born citizens, that Cruz, who clearly understands the truth may assess that taking on the establishment, both parties, on natural born citizenship is an impossible path. I can only guess that by being on the conservative side on almost all other issues he feels his efforts to right the ship would be futile so he has gone with the flow. If he were running against Hillary, who is a natural born citizen, I would not be able to vote for Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood, represented by Huma and John Brennan, along with many other. I would rather that Cruz become secretary of state or be offered the Supreme Court, but would feel much more comfortable if he were to answer why, if indeed he did say it, that the 14th Amendment made him a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizenship. The 14th Amendment is a naturalization amendment built upon Article 1 Section 8, “Create an Uniform Rule for Naturalization.”
I would give up allegiance to our Constitution if Hillary were the alternative and Cruz were the opponent. But I would also expect Hillary, who fully understands the definition of who is a natural born citizen, having signed Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008, to challenge Cruz’ eligibility. While a very good case can be made for Hillary to have committed treason, the only word defined in the Constitution, by arming our enemies, she would be legally correct to challenge Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father, who returned to Cuba after 1959, and a son who was still a Canadian citizen until 2014. He can tell us about his allegiance, but his actions are evidence of someone whose allegiances are divided. That is the law.
Other than the Constitution, I see Cruz fighting for the issues I value. It is a difficult choice, but one over which I sadly I suspect we have little control. Our electoral system has no integrity by comparison with Germany’s or Israel’s or Mexico’s. Our ruling parties have destroyed any potential to audit or verify counts, counts that are collated by the SEIU working for state attorneys general selected with the help of George Soros’ Attorney’s General Project, a spin-out of ACORN. It seems a separate issue, but is perhaps more relevant than eligibility since our representatives have been rendered bystanders by a gestapo-like justice department and IRS that can deny any individual the means to feed his/her family and any private corporation the margins for survival. Stalin, or Lenin, or Trotsky, I’ve long forgotten which of them, told us “In elections only who counts the votes matters.” In the U.S., moving toward total lack of voting verifiability, the SEIU counts our votes. Since no one can prove otherwise, it is mostly likely that party operatives look at the polls, which they may control, and negotiate what they think they can get away with while protecting their sources of income.
The Supreme Court ruled in an 1884 case (Elk v. Wilkins) that an Indian born on a reservation did not acquire United States citizenship at birth (because he was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction) and could not claim citizenship later on merely by moving to non-reservation U.S. territory and renouncing his former tribal allegiance.[54] (Indians were subsequently granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924.)
Thus, classes other than the children of foreign ambassadors, heads of state, and foreign military prisoners can be excluded by the “jurisdiction” clause, and Congress can set (and change) the standards of citizenship by statute.
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers.
Although I am a huge Cruz fan and will vote for him for President without hesitation, I have to admit that I was not surprised to read at the end of the linked article the following:
"The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be President."
But I, and yourself if read you right, will vote for Cruz in a heartbeat despite the fact that a correct interpretation of the Constitution would make him and obviously Obama ineligible for the Office of the Presidency.
I suspect many Freepers who, like I, argued fruitlessly for many months challenging the Obama legibility and the validity of his Birth Certificate will agree. But, IMHO, the issue has been made irrelevant by the Obama Presidency. With any luck we make look back and see that Obama's only real accomplishment was opening the door for Ted Cruz to win the Presidency.
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.