Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.
I am disputing the bona-fides of:
Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.
Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.
Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.
Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
When the nation was founded, the citizenship of the woman was irrelevant. The Common Law at that time was that marriage automatically naturalized a woman to her husbands Allegiance. I believe a statutory law mandating this was passed in 1857, but I don't remember for sure.
At the time, all the governments believed that not only did marriage give a woman a new name, it gave her the husband's national character as well. Foreign women married to American men were automatically naturalized (And with no ceremony, DoodleDawg) and so therefore both parents were always American citizens if the father was.
Foreign men married to American women also naturalized those women to his country of allegiance. Again, this condition was COMPELLED by American law at one point.
My point here is, this "Women's Lib" stuff is relatively new, and does not at all accurately reflect the conditions of earlier times.
By the rules in effect in 1787, Rich Santorum's mother would be regarded as Italian by our government once she married an Italian Citizen.
I would also like to acquaint you with Thomas Jefferson's opinion of Natural Law.
"Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education."
Thankee. My wife has several similar, though less formal, instruments in her files, but I’ve no means of posting them.
Glad to help. Most people discussing this issue have knowledge of stuff like those early identification papers.
Identification as an American was a major problem in the lead up to the war of 1812.
The British impressing American citizens is the main reason we went to war. Without papers, the British would simply grab a person and claim that he was British.
The easy answer is to tell you that i will cross that bridge when it appears before me because I know that it never will. For the benefit of those of you who will probably live longer than me, I will suggest that the answer to your question may depend on whether the space ship is American space ship. I know that the United States can prosecute an American who murders another American aboard an American ship even if that ship is moored on the Congo River at the time of the murder. United States v. Flores. So, if the space ship is American, it may not matter what country it was over at the moment of birth.
The only knowable thing about a child, of which no other circumstances of birth are known is it's parentage. You can know this because it can be established with positive proof through DNA testing.
Yes, you can now, but that certainly was not true when the Constitution was written so it might not provide us with any help in determining how the Founders wanted to define natural born citizen. Determining a person's mother was usually pretty straightforward, but the identity of fathers was always a very iffy proposition. And, remember, the question does not even become important until at least 35 years after birth. There are a lot of people who believe that the definition of a word in the Constitution became fixed at the outset and is unchangeable.
As to Aristotle, it seems that he believed that the meaning of citizenship varied with different forms of government. I am not sure that he had had any experience of representative governments such as is contemplated by our Constitution. And, then, of course, if we are searching for the intent of the Founders, then his opinions might not be too important.
But, whatever works for others is fine with me. I am sticking with natural born citizen = citizen at birth.
Thanks again.
My wife had observed that some form of ID seemed to become more common after around 1820. I speculated that, perhaps, it had something to do with President Andrew Jackson and a lingering desire to be able to differentiate between Indians and American citizens.
Completely forgot about the impressing of Americans into the British Navy and Merchant Marine.
That has always been one of my favorite Jefferson quotes. I think about it every time I see someone argue that future generations will be somehow bound to do things as we do. It comes up a lot with discussions of the national debt. In thirty years, this country will probably have a larger GDP than we have today. They will decide for themselves how to distribute that which they produce and that includes decisions as to how much of their resources they will devote to paying the debts that we create. People should give some thought to that reality when they purchase our debt. In thirty years, the people living then will determine the rules by which they live. We cannot bind them by what we do.
"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers;"
Jefferson did not like John Marshall and Jefferson did not agree with the Supreme Court's power-grabbing decision in Marbury v. Madison. I think about Jefferson and that case every time I see someone arguing that certainly the courts should have the final word on the meaning of the natural born citizen clause. Why, that is what the courts are for!! They have to have the final say about everything.
I believe I know how Jefferson would have felt about that argument. ;-)
> The term natural born citizen does not define itself for me.
It is ordinary English, it’s meaning plain.
> ... certainly the courts should have the final word on the meaning of the natural born citizen clause.
They have only to apply it.
How about you don't know what space ship it is? How about it is an alien space ship? If you are going to be silly, I can be silly too. The point is, the ownership of the ship is immaterial to the inherent status of the person involved. Having only the knowledge of the person, what can you say about their status? In a natural state, the parents will claim their child, whether they know who owned the ship, or over what land it was on at the time.
Determining a person's mother was usually pretty straightforward, but the identity of fathers was always a very iffy proposition.
The English Common law rule is that any children of the marriage are regarded as children of the Husband, regardless of who is the actual father. Kinda silly, but that was the best they could do with the information they had to work with.
There are a lot of people who believe that the definition of a word in the Constitution became fixed at the outset and is unchangeable.
Short of an amendment, yes. That is exactly as it should be. It should be difficult to make changes, and changes should only come with the consent of the governed. We have seen what 75 years later have brought after the appointment of all those liberal Roosevelt judges. They redefine not only words, but entire meanings and intentions.
Who at the time would have ever conceived of the possibility that the 14th amendment would not only give us Abortion and Anchor babies, but "Gay marriage"?
I am not sure that he had had any experience of representative governments such as is contemplated by our Constitution. And, then, of course, if we are searching for the intent of the Founders, then his opinions might not be too important.
Why absolutely. The founders likely never heard of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, or any of those old Greeks. They weren't at all very educated about such things you know.
But, whatever works for others is fine with me. I am sticking with natural born citizen = citizen at birth.
Well sure you can do that. You can believe anything you like despite evidence that it is not true. You may be perfectly happy with a definition that changes requirements every time congress farts, but as for me, I regard it as nonsensical and dangerous, because if the meaning and the intent of the US Constitution can be modified by congressional statute, then the amendment process is effectively irrelevant.
Someone has cut the control lines of this aircraft we are flying. It doesn't respond to helm.
Paris, November 14, 1788.
With respect to the consular appointments, it is a duty on me to add some observations, which my situation here has enabled me to make. I think it was in the spring of 1784, that Congress (harassed by multiplied applications from foreigners, of whom nothing was known but on their own information, or on that of others as unknown as themselves) came to a resolution, that the interest of America would not permit the naming any person not a citizen, to the office of consul, vice-consul, agent, or commissary. This was intended as a general answer to that swarm of foreign pretenders. It appears to me, that it will be best, still to preserve a part of this regulation. Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to aliens, and to citizens alien-born.
Native citizens are preferable to citizens "alien-born"?
Wow. It sounds like ole T.J. doesn't regard them as the same thing. Funny that. Didn't he write that thing which created US Citizenship?
Maybe he should have had you around to explain it to him.
Completely forgot about the impressing of Americans into the British Navy and Merchant Marine.
It was a big thing between 1790 and the War of 1812. I've read the dispatches between our Diplomats in France and the Jefferson and Madison administrations.
The United States was neutral during the Napoleonic Wars, and as a result, the British were constantly pretending to be American so that they could operate in French waters, and the French were getting very pissed about it. They were suggesting that perhaps we Americans were collaborating with the British, and perhaps we were not so neutral as we pretended to be?
Madison was Secretary of State at the time, and Monroe was Ambassador to France, and Madison instructed him to do everything he could to stop the forged papers being used, and that it was imperative that American Sailors be properly identifiable as such.
It was a very big deal at the time. Here is an excerpt from one of the letters that I read which I thought was interesting.
James Monroe in a letter from Paris, July 4, 1795.
The jealousy which is entertained by this government of the commerce carried on by our countrymen between the ports of this republic and those of England has latterly shewn itself in a more impleasant form than heretofore and I am fearful it will not yet produce some more disagreeable effect. A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle. More latterly I was requested by the commissary of foreign affairs to prohibit our consuls from granting passports, which was immediately done. I was afterwards requested by him to furnish a list of the Americans actually in Paris, and to render a like list every decade of those who should in the interim arrive, and which was promised and will be punctually executed. I herewith send you a copy of my instructions to the Consuls and correspondence with the commissary on this subject.
You are committing a fallacy here. I believe it's called the "substitution fallacy", but I don't remember for sure.
You are equating the position that laws mean something into an assertion that we want laws to be unchangeable. There is no quibble with future generation's abilities to change laws, the quibble is about doing it up front and with the consent of all relevant parties, or doing it with word twisting and deceit to thwart the original intent.
"Gay Marriage" is an example of deceit. They deliberately misinterpret thousands of years of Social and legal norms into something that it was never meant to be, and do so in a manner to deliberately thwart the will of the people.
They do this sort of thing all the time, and it mostly started with the Roosevelt Administration and his Kook judge parade.
Jefferson did not like John Marshall and Jefferson did not agree with the Supreme Court's power-grabbing decision in Marbury v. Madison.
I argue this point with a friend all the time. My position is that someone has to decide constitutionality, and who better for that task then the body tasked with weighing legal matters?
Would you give this power to the executive? Would you allow the executive branch to decide if something was constitutional or not?
How than could you stop illegal searches? All the executive has to do is declare them "not illegal."
Would you give this power to congress? They routinely make anti-constitutional laws, and don't ever seem to have the wit to realize that's what they are doing. Either that, or they just don't care.
No, the court's may abuse this power, but I don't see where else it can rest but the courts. I perceive it as being far more likely to be abused by the other branches of government than it would by the courts.
I hate the idiocy that is our modern court system, but as a foundational concept, I see the structure of our government as needing this check and from that body. I think we just need to make the courts more responsive to the people.
The founders deliberately insulated the courts from the passions of the people, but I think they did not consider the degree to which this would create these petty tyrannies and partisan results in the courts.
Ted Cruz has the right idea. Make Federal judges stand for election every six years. It may not be perfect, but I see it as better than what we have now.
"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary;" -T.J.-
People have always had the right to expatriate regardless of whether they believe in natural law. Slaves and indentured servants did not own themselves for the first 89 years of the republic.
Elections for federal judges would require an amendment to the Constitution.
What kind of elected judges do you think we would get in a nation that elected Barack Obama twice?
That is absolutely not true. The rule "Once an Englishman, Always an Englishman." Was in fact the case. It was ILLEGAL for a man to leave off his allegiance to the King.
It was in fact, Treason.
Slaves and indentured servants did not own themselves for the first 89 years of the republic.
Slaves did not own themselves for the first four score and nine years of the Republic, but indentured servants generally worked for 7 years and then were free.
Yes.
What kind of elected judges do you think we would get in a nation that elected Barack Obama twice?
I don't think Cruz is proposing direct elections. He is proposing retention elections. Judges will still be appointed in the usual manner, they will just get tossed out if they piss off the public too much.
This would give whomever was President an opportunity to correct the make up of the court.
It's actually a very good idea. We could get rid of a lot of scum and idiots.
Would you give this power to the executive? Would you allow the executive branch to decide if something was constitutional or not?
I would insist that the executive decide whether something is constitutional or not before acting.
How than could you stop illegal searches? All the executive has to do is declare them "not illegal."
I would insist that judges (like all other constitutional actors) consider the constitutionality of what they do before they do it. If a court believes that a prosecutor is attempting to admit into evidence items that were recovered by an unconstitutional search, the court should refuse to allow the prosecutor to do so. The court should not permit its operations to be tainted by unconstitutional conduct. In other words, the court (as a co-equal branch of government) has the inherent power to refuse to participate in unconstitutional activities.
If the Executive is conducting illegal searches and not attempting to use the materials in court, the Congress would retain the power to cut off funding for the activity and/or the courts can award damages to parties who are injured by such illegal conduct. I think if you consider various potential problems, you will find that most government activity will require the tacit support of at least two of the branches to sustain it over a period of time. The key is that every branch has an obligation to consider its constitutional responsibilities.
Would you give this power to congress? They routinely make anti-constitutional laws, and don't ever seem to have the wit to realize that's what they are doing. Either that, or they just don't care.
I would insist that the Congress decide whether something is constitutional or not before acting. The fact that the Congress passes an unconstitutional law does not mean that other branches have to participate in its enforcement. Each branch should be considering the constitutionality of what it is doing.
The founders deliberately insulated the courts from the passions of the people, but I think they did not consider the degree to which this would create these petty tyrannies and partisan results in the courts.
You will look long and hard before you find any provision in the constitution that states that the judiciary has greater power than other branches to interpret the constitution. This why Jefferson regarded Marbury v. Madison as a judicial usurpation.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
So I guess you've decided to try to debate Thomas Jefferson?
You will look long and hard before you find any provision in the constitution that states that the judiciary has greater power than other branches to interpret the constitution.
The notion of "Greater" or "Lesser" is a matter of perspective depending upon what you consider to be important. The fact that congress controls the money seems to me to be a very great power. That congress can impeach members of the court seems to me to make them of a higher power than the courts. That the executive controls the army, means the nation can launch a war that nobody wants against states attempting to gain independence from what they regard as tyranny. Again, a very great power. In fact, it was the ultimate power, because the President was arresting legislators and threatening to arrest Judges.
So all in all, even with the courts doing judicial review (and you didn't really answer who better should do it or why) they are still a poor third in terms of the power they wield.
It only looks like a lot nowadays because of the supine indulgent nature of the other two branches of government. Earl Warren should have been impeached, and so should many of the post Roosevelt appointed judges. Congress was just unconcerned with these Judicial breaches, and the Presidency was under the delusion that respect for Unconstitutional rulings by the courts should be given.
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.