Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
So, yes, Leo is correct. Two Mexicans can have a Child here and the child becomes a US citizen. He can grow up to hate the United states and wish for its demise, but he cant become president to fulfill that wish, with good reason. He's not an NBC, the child of citizens. His loyalty to Mexico would be honorably expected. Alwaki, the Yemeni, perfect example. Mom and Dad from Yemen, and born in the USA. Hates America, wants to kill all of us. Not eligible for the presidency.
OH, I am sooo glad you are reading my stuff!!! It has to help you get smarter. You just have to let me know what are your favorites.
That he is dual citizen, hates America, and is Not qualified to be president is not a coincidence. The three go together.
Don't be naive or ignorant. There are many dual citizens and naturalized citizens that hate us and want us dead. I have seen them smile, in person, with glee at the notion of our young men getting maimed or killed in battle. These same types attended Reverend Wrights church as Obama did.
Oh my goodness, I have my very own biographer following me around and reading my very good Internet Articles and stuff, sooo I think I am entitled to some vanity. Plus, my writing is NOT insipid. You are just saying that because you don’t want to admit how good it is. But, you are falling down in your duties. Get back to reading young man!!!
You are just saying that because you don’t want to admit how good it is.
No, I'm saying it because your writing really does suck.
If you were that good you would be a syndicated writer instead of just a blogger on half a dozen (if not more) "dime a dozen" blog sites.
I've given credit where credit is due in the past so if you were deserving of such I would have no problem giving it.
How is that "Ark" research coming? Do you still think Ark stands for Arkansas?
Anyway, I think you ought to take a Squeeky Pop Quiz:
Squeeky's Pop Quiz
1. What is the name of the patient Obot???
2. What town does Sunny Lou live in???
3. What are the names of the Obots in Group Therapy???
4. What is the name of the Beatnik movie???
5. Where is Osama supposedly living???
6. Name 10 of the 22 Alternative reasons Obama may not have coughed it up.
7. What letter isn't in Kenyan???
8. What kind of restaurant did Obama run in the Obama and the Newsboy???
9. What Internet Article concerned the TSA???
10. Who did I compare Jared Laughner to???
I was simply restating what I thought was the gist of the discussion in this thread. I was not debating the facts of the case.
But I appreciate the meaning of your statement.
-PJ
Your understanding is just fine. Lawyers and fussy-sorts like pinpoint accuracy. For lay folks, it isn’t necessary. You have the ‘gist’.
A lot of things are not defined in the Constitution. It's very typical for the Supreme Court to look outside the Constitution and outside U.S. law for guidance. The common references are English common law and international law, such as expressed in the Law of Nations by Vattel. The court has said this in both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark decisions. The latter relied heavily on English common law to give teeth, so to speak, to the 14th amendment.
It sounds like you're saying (and pardon me for hypothetically putting words in your mouth) when "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to bind us, we have to look elsewhere to find out who "We" and "our Posterity" are?
No, we have to look elsewhere to understand what the Art. II Sec I legal term "natural born citizen" means. The Court already acknowledged general citizenship as deriving from the Constitution in the sections you're talking about:
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization
From there the court says NBC is not defined in the Constitution, so they have to look elsewhere for the meaning. To me, that says the Constitution does not tell who becomes a citizen by birth, but it does acknowledge a class of persons who naturally become citizens at birth. Then it defines what it means to be an NBC.
Again, it's significant that so recently after the adoption of the 14th amendment, the court insisted on refusing to apply the birth clause of that amendment to a person who was obviously born or naturalized in the United States. If they wanted to say that the 14th defined who becomes a citizen at birth, this was a great opportunity. But the obvious reason they didn't was that if the only thing that was required to be a citizen was birth in the country, there was no need for a 14th amendment.
That's the defect in the Wong Kim Ark decision. It argues that citizenship by birth is a long held fundamental rule, but obviously it wasn't universally applied in the United States, else there was no need for the amendment to be written. The 14th amendment served the purpose of creating citizenship for those persons born in the country who would NOT naturally be recognized as citizens. This means anyone NOT born to TWO citizen parents. For any other combination, there is doubt. Justice Gray removed the doubt about 14th amendment citizenship by birth by stating the parents had permanent residence and domicil in the United States in order to meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Incidentally, Obama's parents do not meet this requirement.
A quick addendum to clarify what I was talking about. When I say “Then it defines what it means to be an NBC,” the “it” is the Supreme Court in the Minor decision. I’m not saying that the Constitution defines what it means to be an NBC.
When I say “Then it defines what it means to be an NBC,” the “it” is the Supreme Court in the Minor decision. I’m not saying that the Constitution defines what it means to be an NBC.
And I am saying that it does.
I am saying that "We the People..." and "our Posterity" defines citizen parents and their children.
This does not mean direct descendents. It means that naturalized citizens who have a child in the country confer natural born status to the child, even though the parents themselves are not. Once naturalized, they become "We the people."
-PJ
This is in line with something I've pointed out before. The language you mention in the Constitution is similar to the way the original colonial charters were written up when the colonies were settled. They used terms such as "heirs and successors" and talked about how those born in the colony would become natural born subjects (in line with British common law) OR denizens. This means that you could be born in the country and not be recognized as a subject (or citizen), so the Wong Kim Ark ruling is in error when it says birthplace was sufficient to establish citizenship. Here's a quote from the Georgia charter of 1732:
Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects ...
link to source
Here's another example ... Maryland, 1632:
all and singular the Subjects and Liege-Men of Us, our Heirs and Successors, transplanted, or hereafter to be transplanted into the Province aforesaid, and the Children of them, and of others their Descendants, whether already born there, or hereafter to be born, be-and shall be Natives and Liege-Men of Us, our Heirs and Successors
link to source
And one more ... Charter of New England, 1620:
Also, Wee do for Us, our Heires, and Successors, declare by these Presents, that all and every the Persons, beinge our Subjects, which shall goe and inhabitt within the said Collony and Plantation, and every of their Children and Posterity, which shall happen to be born within the Limitts thereof, shall have and enjoy all Liberties, and ffranchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abidinge and born within this our Kingdome of England, or any other our Dominions.
link to source
The consistent theme is that if you're born to a subject, you are a natural subject. If you're born to a denizen (a legal alien), then you are considered a denizen. It would stand to reason that these state rules prevailed under the original Constitution of the United States or were amended under the states' Constitutions when the colonies became states. If the term "natural born citizen" is consistent with "natural born subjects," it is based on being born to persons who are legal members of the state (those persons who were subjects in the colonies but who became citizens upon U.S. Independence). The loyalists and their children (even if born in the U.S.after independence) were still considered British subjects, which has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court, such as in Shanks v. Dupont. Nowhere do these charters suggest that it's enough to be born to an alien and be considered a subject/citizen of the colony/state.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged the legal term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution was not defined BY the Constitution ... not at the Founding of the United States nor at the adoption of the 14th amendment. They cited a common-law definition from outside the Constitution as the nomenclature in which the framers would be familiar: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It is a precedent. Other classes of citizens have to be created by the 14th amendment or by naturalization laws.
Because it's not a precedent. It's dicta. Dicta are not now, and never have been, legal precedent.
philman_36 wrote: “It doesn’t have your snippet either so I’m wondering what/where your source is.”
My source is what I cited: Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968). The “28 Md. L. Rev” bit means the 28’th volume of the Maryland Law Review. I downloaded it from the Maryland Law Review’s slow web site: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/mdlr/print/articles/mllr28.pdf
philman_36 wrote: “By the by...do you have anything more than just that small snippet of Gordon’s. I see you’ve posted it several times so I’m assuming you have something more substantial than just that.”
I recommend the whole paper as recent ‘birther’ suits proved Gordon remarkably prescient on how edibility might be challenged and the likely outcomes. For example, considering federal suits challenging eligibility: “In the first place, a person seeking to launch such a contest would have to overcome the seemingly insuperable hurdle of legal standing to sue. In the federal practice his lack of direct interest would seem fatal.”
Moreover, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recommended readers see Gordon’s paper, in the Court’s opinion dismissing an eligibility suit, Barnett v. Obama.
The papers by Gordon and Pryor focus on the eligibility of foreign-born citizens from birth, because that was the question in doubt. They note that the eligibility of the native-born was already clear and settled, and there is no record of anyone disagreeing with those notes until people wanted to deny Obama’s eligibility.
One more thing, philman_36: One of your linked citation claimed that Gordon’s article, “was published in 1968, during the time when then Gov. George Romney of Michigan ran for the 1968 Republican Party nomination for President.” Close, but not true. Gordon’s paper notes that Romney had already dropped out. No particular candidate was at issue when Gordon or Pryor published their papers. They wrote on principle, not to benefit nor harm any particular candidate, and not a single ‘birther’ can honestly make the same claim. If I’m wrong on that, please cite one birther speaking up before 2008 on the insufficiency of native-born citizenship.
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.
