Replies

EPIC FAIL!

You are still failing basic reading comprehension.

Since I can see that you will never figure this out on your own, let me help you out:

I threw the Dred Scott decision out there because that is how stupid you After-Birthers sound when you keep throwing out the Kim Wong Ark decision in an attempt to prove something that has nothing to do with the actual INTENT of the Founding Fathers. Just like Dred Scott, Kim Wong Ark doesn’t matter in this context.

Let me elaborate:

I DON’T CARE what case you or anyone else is using to justify whatever you wish to believe. Nor do I really care whether Vattel’s definition or Blackhole’s definition was floating around in the heads of the Founding Fathers when writing that the President should be a Natural-Born Citizen.

I am a Constitutional Disciple. I CARE about the INTENT of the words Our Founding Fathers used when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

The INTENT of the Natural-Born Citizen requirement was an attempt by the Founding Fathers to assure that the Office of President was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S.

This is VERIFIABLE FACT. I am sure you have come across a statement by one of Our Founding Fathers, Charles Pinckney: “...and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.”

——****——

In St. George Tucker’s Treatise on the Constitution (1803), St. George Tucker wrote:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague....”

——****——

President George Washington said in his farewell address:

“Passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils...Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

“And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”

-——****-——

Obama freely admits on his official campaign website that he was born with dual-citizenship.

In and of itself, being born with dual-citizenship brings into question a possible violation of the INTENT of Our Founding Fathers when they drafted the Natural Born Citizen requirement.

However, as you would most certainly agree with me here, dual-citizenship at birth vs. the INTENT of Our Founding Fathers is certainly open for debate.

You see, being born with dual-citizenship only becomes a major problem when that person begins to show split allegiances between the United States and the nation of his/her other citizenship.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that since Obama has violated the INTENT of a Natural Born Citizen requirement, Obama is no longer a true, Natural Born Citizen (if he ever was).

In conclusion, it doesn’t matter which Supreme Court case one decides to cite in an attempt to define the phrase, “Natural Born Citizen.” Nor does the 14th Amendment in anyway change Our Founding Fathers’ INTENT when they wrote the Natural Born Citizen requirement for President.

To endlessly cite any SCOTUS decision as the word of law on this particular subject, ad nauseam, is just a waste of time and detracts from the one thing that matters most: The INTENT of the law.

Cheers

I like you! You are 75%ish wrong, but I like you! You don’t just post pictures and fling poop like some of the Birther Chimps on this thread. You put your thoughts into English, and lay them out for a good bout of intelligent discourse. So, I like you! You will be a worthy adversary.

Now, lets take your points. There is nothing wrong with your “original intent” argument. In fact, if you will read Wong a few times, you will realize that “original intent” was exactly what the Wong Court was trying to figure out. That is why they went into all that analysis.

And, remember, a goodly number of the Founding fathers were LAWYERS. You are not wrong to think that they feared “foreign influence”. They did. But the legal point is, what is a natural born citizen. And to those LAWYERS, well groomed in ENGLISH LAW, those words had a meaning. The Wong Court investigated the law, extant at the time of the framing, to determine what that meaning was.

LO AND BEHOLD! There was a real long history of “natural born” sitting right out there and just waiting to be mined. So, the Wong Court did. If you need a link, I will give you one, but the Wong Court wrote a LENGTHY analysis of this and cited numerous sources. The Wong Court even considered the law of nations.

And, as a result, they come up with “natural born” meaning “born inside the country”. They even provided the exceptions, none of which apply to us in the Obama case. The Wong Court did not just pluck the concept out of thin air. Nor were they the first court to determine this, nor are they the last. I provided you, I think, a recent case which arrived at the same determination. Wong is not radical, activist law by any stretch of the imagination.

I think where you are going astray, logically speaking, is that you want “original intent” but you don’t like the way that “original intent” gets determined. You seem to want to impute YOUR idea of original intent, and walk away satisfied, while ignoring the fact that there is a group of people we have paid handsomely over the years to decide this exact thing. We call them “judges.” The really good ones, we call “Supreme Court Judges.” The system has worked pretty well over the years.

You make cogent arguments, with sources, about what YOU think “natural born” means, but with no offense intended, it don’t work that way. Here, in the United States, we have a system of building these concepts through the legal system. The Founders wanted a stable legal system based upon stare decisis, or precedental law. Courts are the way we accomplish this, and the Supreme Court is the biggest one in the whole dang country.

Your desire to just sorta skip over them, and go straight to what YOU think “natural born” means is neither workable nor Constitutional. You are free to make your arguments as to what you think “natural Born” means, but if you love the Constitution, then you should respect the system the Founders established.

Wong is the staring point. Now you wish to delve into allegiance, and Wong does, FWIW, but do you think it possible for a court to READ A CANDIDATE’S MIND? Should Obama be treated differently than another person born with say, a Canadian father? Should a court inquire into one’s political leanings in deciding these things?

Well dang if the Founders didn’t think of that too! They gave us ELECTIONS, and a FREE PRESS. You see, what you want the Court to do, isn’t their responsibility beyond defining a “natural born citizen.” It is OUR responsibility to decide if a candidate is is “pro America” enough. We can vote for him or not.

YOUR system could result in a panel of 9 Sara Sotomeyers deciding that Sarah Palin is too CHRISTIAN to be free of that influence. See where this is headed? You are advocating for a system where the Supreme Court does our job for us. That ain’t American. That ain’t Constitutional.

parsy, who says once again, thanks for not being a chimpanzee like some of the others on this thread

Since Obama has certainly shown his allegiances to Kenya by actively participating in the affairs of the Kenyan political process when he went to Kenya and campaigned for Odinga without direct orders from the United States government to do so, he has demonstrated his split-allegiances and is most definitely in violation of the INTENT of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. (Sorry for the run-on sentence, it’s getting late).

Great post.

"If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."-----Leo Donofrio.

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?