Posted on 06/24/2011 6:25:19 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
In a February 13, 1818 letter to H. Niles, John Adams wrote:
“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.“
The first “shots” of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.
There is now a radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the American people.
Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents.
The present occupiers of the US Government openly violate the Constitution, are hopelessly corrupt and politically correct, have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society.
They can no longer be trusted as guardians of our posterity.
Not a week goes by without yet another document analyst claiming that his Certificate of Live Birth presented by Obama at his press conference on April 27, 2011 is a forgery.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Bubba’s lying.
Prove that anyone said that.
Of course, you can’t.
And if you think I’m being in any way unfair in that, then know that I have the right to choose who I will and will not associate with, and there are consequences to the way you treat other people, and to the things you say.
Even on the internet.
Prove that anyone said that.
Of course, you can’t.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2117322/posts?page=229#229
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2401072/posts?page=161#161
I just read them and it sounds as though the meaning is if you go after Italian dual citizenship then you would not qualify as a NBC.
IOW if someone holds passports from two countries, they would not be a NBC.
As you like. Would some Freeper be a good fellow and ask Jeff Winston these two questions:
1. Is this topic personal for you because someone you care about has a foreign parent?
2. Are you aware that prior to 1920, foreign women automatically gained American citizenship upon their marriage to American men?
I'll start with those, and work up to the Naturalization act of 1790 which you excerpted to support your argument.
That position makes no sense, though. First, how would an act I perform as an adult (getting an Italian passport) change my status as "natural born"? Note the word "born" in there. Second, under Italian law, I'm already a citizen, even though I don't have a passport and they are, in fact, completely oblivious to my existence. Simply applying for a passport doesn't grant me citizenship--I already have it in their eyes.
When I started learning about this issue, I thought the Jus Soli argument was a necessary requirement, but after reading the "naturalization act of 1790" I saw that the Delegates weren't so much concerned about WHERE you were born, but whether or not you had an American father.
I completely reject that other nation's claims have any impact on the meaning of American citizenship. You say the Italians regard people of Italian descent to still be citizens, I've heard the Same of Ireland and Israel. However, Another nation's claim on you does not affect your American citizenship unless your agree to let it.
Indecent people are more fun.
You’ve an after birther for a long time. I’m not going to step it in with you, other than to say this:
If you (theoretically) consider yourself an Italian citizen enough to get an Italian passport, then you are not an NBC because of dual loyalties.
Someone born with NBC could lose it by becoming a citizen of another country.
It’s simple but people who want have ulterior motives on this topic bore me.
So it's not about law, but about FEELINGS. Got it.
No, feelings have nothing to do with my POV. Three years of reading about the topic inform me.
A person can have NBC status at birth but renounce it. Obviously.
Sheesh, how stupid can you be.
1. Is this topic personal for you because someone you care about has a foreign parent?
No.
I became involved in the topic because I was interested in finding out for myself whether Barack Obama was actually eligible to be President, or not.
2. Are you aware that prior to 1920, foreign women automatically gained American citizenship upon their marriage to American men?
I've heard the allegation, but offhand, I don't see how it's relevant to the meaning of natural born citizen.
I'll start with those, and work up to the Naturalization act of 1790 which you excerpted to support your argument.
Why don't you do better than that? Why don't you try the following:
1) Read the actual court cases for yourself. See what they actually say. Do so without reference to writings by Donofrio, Apuzzo, etc. to interpret them for you and tell you what they supposedly mean.
You can start with the four Supreme Court cases that supposedly define natural born citizen as being a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents.
Read the entire text of all four cases, and see if you can find any explicit statement in the majority opinion of any one of the four that says:
"A natural born citizen is a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents."
Or, "Persons born on US soil are not natural born citizens unless both parents are US citizens at the time of birth."
Or, "The Founding Fathers relied upon Vattel for the meaning of 'natural born citizen,' and not upon English common law."
See if you can find any one of the above. And don't let the assumption that you're not going to, stop you from looking. Read all of the majority opinions carefully, and analyze what the courts actually said.
2) Answer the question that I asked philman earlier in this thread.
3) Work your way through my reasoning on Minor v. Happersett - not for the purpose of trying to prove me wrong, but for the purpose of understanding what I said, asking yourself whether it makes sense, and seeing whether it seems to match what Minor v. Happersett actually says.
4) Read through the entire majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, very carefully, taking notes as you go along, of what Justice Gray actually says - not what you or Leo Donofrio want him to say.
5) Spend at least 3 or 4 hours doing outside research into historical writings regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." And by "outside," I'm talking about outside of Donofrio's and Apuzzo's blogs, although you can certainly include those as well. There's plenty of material on the internet.
6) Go through Donofrio's post on Minor v. Happersett setting a binding precedent, very carefully and logically. See what logical fallacies you can pinpoint.
If you have any intellectual honesty (which as I seem to recall, I don't believe you do, as I seem to remember you making a statement to the effect that you wouldn't be convinced to matter what - but of course my memory could very well be faulty on that point, so I won't swear to that), you'll get the answers to any questions you would ask of me anyway.
Which is entirely a liberal type of position.
You wished me, whom you have never met and don’t know, to be taken out and shot, like the Jews in Schindler’s List.
I wish you a good life.
That logic is just.. well.. Illogical. Why do you think the eligibility criteria was specified in the Constitution? So it could be ignored? No, a person not eligible can not be President. Elections do not override the Constitution.
Which court has thus ruled?
None of course, Obama's lawyers argued on "ripeness" and "standing", not on the issue at hand. Yes I know that's what lawyers do, especially those who know or suspect they'd fail on the merits of the other side's issue.
Too much to respond to in one message.
1. Is this topic personal for you because someone you care about has a foreign parent?
No.
Okay, done. I won't ask this again.
I've heard the allegation, but offhand, I don't see how it's relevant to the meaning of natural born citizen.
It is EXTREMELY relevant. Prior to 1920, there was no such thing as a divided citizenship marriage, and no such thing as a divided citizenship offspring. The offspring of a Marriage to an American male was automatically the offspring of two citizen parents. The founders could not ratify an article that tolerates a condition which did not exist at the time, and of which was alien to their understanding. (divided citizenship offspring.)
Why don't you do better than that? Why don't you try the following:
1) Read the actual court cases for yourself. See what they actually say. Do so without reference to writings by Donofrio, Apuzzo, etc. to interpret them for you and tell you what they supposedly mean.
Because I don't think the opinions of founders filtered through the courts are an improvement on the original source material. A judge cannot reach back in time and change what is written, he can only add his own prejudice and agenda.
In science, arguments are made from "first principles." This tends to keep error out of the discussion. Unfortunately the legal system has made a methodology out of the "fallacy of authority." They call it "Precedent."
In my opinion, Subsequent court opinions are the least reliable method of determining original intent.
And what question might that be? I dare say it would have been quicker if you just asked it. I don't relish the thought of perusing backwards in the thread. I have enough messages to answer now.
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.