Posted on 04/30/2011 10:59:37 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Obama has now personally and publicly acknowledged, albeit with the ‘silliness’ of an eight-year-old with a crayon and a piece of security paper*, that he is not a natural born Citizen – as defined by the Constitution:
1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ shall be eligible to the Office of President; 2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations; 3. The Law of Nations says that:
1.‘The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’; 2.‘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’; 3.‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’; 4.‘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.’ Now that Congress has been made fully (and publicly) aware that an ineligible non-natural born Citizen is occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief (they could not be so stupid as to not know – see ‘Something Stupid This Way Comes’), it becomes incumbent upon them to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, lest their failure to act previously – or especially now that they and the whole world knows – makes them chargeable with Misprision of Treason.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You’re clearly having a difficult time with the concept of Constitutional citizenship, granted by no inferior statutory or civil authority.
Other than a Cherokee or two and the matter of my great grandfather having to take the Oath Of Allegiance after the Civil War, I don’t have a single ancestor that wasn’t natural born all the way back to the founding generation which was covered by the so-called “Grandfather Clause.” All born on US soil of citizen parents, for the duration of this country’s existence.
Obama’s birth certificate proves nothing even if it’s genuine. His father was foreign, he was a citizen of another nation at birth, ergo he was not a natural born citizen of the United States because he was subject to another juridiction. This means he was not subject to the sole jurisdiction of the US.
You’re right that Congress cannot pass laws that establish with authority and force of law what the Constitution means.
However, courts can and do refer to statements made in Congress, and to laws and resolutions passed by Congress, as an aid to help them determine what Congress meant when it passed laws and drafted Constitutional amendments. Of course, that’s only done when the Congressmen whose words are used for that purpose at least participated in the debates on the laws or Constitutional amendments whose meaning the court is trying to ascertain.
In the case of the Congressional statements quoted above concerning the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the Congress where those statements were made did in fact include those who not only debated the 14th Amendment, but in fact wrote and championed it. So courts would definitely give it some weight for the purpose of understanding intent.
That is not a true statement. Your "ergo" follows no known path of law.
Unless and until you have something that says otherwise, then being born on U.S. soil is sufficient. People born on U.S. Soil are citizens in every way shape or form. They can get a U.S. Passport just by showing their birth certificate and they can be drafted (should it come to it).
Your attempt at an "argument" fails on its face.
And makes us all look like loons.
Apparently not. The Birth-bots are as much on a path of self-destruction as the Paul-bots of old.
>>It’s a HUGE ambiguous hole in the Constitution as amended. <<
It is an even HUGER loser argument for the current situation.
The Birthers (now Birth-bots) demanded the COLB — when it was produced, they want to move the goalposts. The original supposed “fake” documents also listed the father as Kenyan, yet few, if anyone, made the “daddy” argument.
Constitutional scholars can argue this until the cows come home, but in the end for the current situation the bulk of law is on the side of the TOTUS-reader.
And, yes, if it was put to them that is where SCOTUS is likely to go.
This IS splitting hairs and beyond almost everyone on this thread.
The difference is I recognize it.
>>>mark steyn says this is nuts.
He was over the top nuts himself in decrying this “natural born” stuff.
”All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Are there records showing a court ruling on someone being a natural born citizen. There must be a case in our legal history somewhere!!
In the comments section:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/obama-cant-defeat-his-own-strawman/#more-6093
drkate :
… or hidden away!
Keep in mind that WE ALREADY KNOW THE UNAMBIGUOUS LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM-OF-ART “natural born Citizen”!! It was put into the law of this land by the United States Supreme Court decision in the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case and has never been overturned (but even has been recognized and confirmed in other cases since that time). At the time of the decision in Minor it was almost 100 years after the nation’s founding and even now 230-plus years later it still means the same thing. One simplified way of stating this is “born in the US of 2 US citizen parents”.
The actual 1875 Supreme Court opinion in Minor v Happersett:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “ (emphasis added)
This means the simple “born in America of 2 citizen parents” still is the active, pertinent law of our land. It should in conjunction with A2S1C5 of the Constitution, be the law that determines Obama’s fate … of course he and the Flying Monkeys won’t agree; they’d rather just ignore or rewrite the Constitution, but I wouldn’t.
That others were unable or unwilling to enforce the laws is of no use to conservatism.
That others were unable or unwilling to enforce the laws is of no use to conservatism.
>>That others were unable or unwilling to enforce the laws is of no use to conservatism.<<
There is no law unenforced. Just your personal, strained, uneducated, and loopy opinion.
As I said, there is a huge body of law specifying what a natural citizen is (op. cit.). Bandying the word “born” means nothing.
It is splitting hairs that are best left alone.
Please stop making conservatives look like Area 51 goofballs.
Apparently the Supreme Court is not doing their job because Obama just showed the world what he says is his long form birth certificate and it clearly shows that one of his parents is (was) not a U.S. citizen and therefore Obama is not a naturalized citizen and is unqualified to be President. I have not heard a peep coming from the Supreme Court. This is their chance to apply their equal power under the Constitution and they do nothing.
Appears that the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” has undergone extensive clarification in at least 4 prior US Supreme Court Cases:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
I see no one disputed your point.
I understand your concern — yes, we win on the issues — but you really need to learn more about how to persuade people.
“Birthers asked for the COLB — we got it, issue over.”
What a shallow argument. That’s like saying that anyone should be a U.S. citzen regardless of where he or she happened to be born. Is that essentially Stein’s argument? Brilliant guy but darn is he messed up if that’s his silly claim.
Back to the basics. I found some powerful Vattel research. I’ll repost some snippets from it, coming up.
a Natural Born Citizen
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the 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.”
Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. [That explanation is covered exhaustively.] ... Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.
[article goes on to expose the Blackstone counterpoint. Here’s part of that ...]
John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.
What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.
[snip/unquote]
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.