Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship
WND ^ | 9/01/2012 | Larry Klayman

Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH

[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthers; bithcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; scalia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-178 next last
To: Eric in the Ozarks

“The High Court did no such thing.”

Whether you acknowledge it or not the USSC most certaintly did.


101 posted on 09/01/2012 9:33:32 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Klayman tried to pull a fast one.

“According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means...”

Wait a second. He cited the actual language of the constitution, but then he *interpreted* what *he* thinks it means, pretending that the courts have only interpreted it that way.

Anything but. What “natural born citizen” actually means has been interpreted in many ways over the years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen#Interpretations_of_the_clause

Today, as of 2011, the best the Congressional Research Service can come up with on the subject is that, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates...”

Yes, this is waffling. However, the Supreme Court itself has reinterpreted what “natural born citizen” means several times.

So hitting Scalia with an ambush question tells us only that Scalia honestly does not know the answer, nor could he, until the Supreme Court decides it, and they haven’t done so.

As such, since congress never wrote “enabling acts”, the SCOTUS would have to debate among themselves and rule before anything could be said definitively about what the clause *means*.


102 posted on 09/01/2012 9:47:32 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Either “The Illegitimate President” or “The Father of Our Glorious Revolution.” I’m hoping for the former but fearful of the latter....


103 posted on 09/01/2012 10:05:11 AM PDT by Hetuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Horse hockey. Scalia darn well knows the definition is 1) born in the USA and 2) to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS. Thomas has already admitted SCOTUS is “evading” not ignoring, not waiting for it to come to their docket, but EVADING as in they don’t want to touch it. The definition was also agreed upon by Obama and Hillary and Chertoff in the committee for SR511. Obama and Hillary signed their signatures to that committee findings on the definition. They then signed a second time when it went to the Senate floor when it was agreed upon by the Senate. IOW, Congress agrees to the 1)born in the USA and 1) to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.


104 posted on 09/01/2012 10:06:04 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Sorry, your son does not meet the jus sangius requirement or unless you mean your hubby was naturalized on the day your son was born.


105 posted on 09/01/2012 10:28:24 AM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GregNH; Vaquero

My prediction is that SCOTUS wants to let the election take its course and then address this afterwards.


106 posted on 09/01/2012 10:29:44 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

“There is no reference to a candidate’s parents in the constitution.”

There is. It says “Natural Born Citizen”. The Framers knew that this was what it meant. By using THIS “specific” term, they made that “statement” (not just a reference). In fact, they CHANGED the wording for that specific reason.

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/synopsis.htm

http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm

http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm


107 posted on 09/01/2012 10:30:27 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Probably not:

“In short, We the People no longer have a republic, because our leaders represent only themselves, not us – and that goes for both Democrats and Republicans no matter what kind of sideshow they offer up at their 2012 political conventions.”

In my view we will not have a resolution or a future as a Republic until we restore the republic by over turning certain Amendments to the Constitution and replacing them with reinforcements to the basic principles of the Constitution... this will probably not happen.


108 posted on 09/01/2012 10:35:39 AM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average, they voted for oblabla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

Well, you’ve got some blogs in support of that argument. Your problem is that it looks like the judiciary takes a different view.


109 posted on 09/01/2012 10:38:03 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
And anyone who thinks SCOTUS will resolve the case in a manner that finds Obama (or Rubio, Jindal, Haley, etc.) ineligible needs to put down the crack pipe and come back to planet earth.

It's over. This stuff is going nowhere.

Absolutely. If the Court ever takes up the question, they'll go with the commonly understood meaning of "natural born": Whoever is entitled to US citizenship by birth is natural born and eligible to be president. Others who become citizens via naturalization are not natural born and not eligible to be president. Obama, McCain, Rubio, Jindal, etc., are natural born. Schwarzenegger and Kissinger are not.

Obama's problem is not that he's not natural born. He is. Rather, it's that he's not an American in his own mind. There's a new movie out about that: 2016.

110 posted on 09/01/2012 10:40:52 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye
originalbuckeye said: "If anyone told me my son is not eligible to be President of the United States of America, I would call them a liar. "

Your opinion is that having one citizen parent is sufficient to qualify a person to be President.

Do we both agree that having TWO non-citizen parents is not sufficient? What is it about having two non-citizen parents that would have caused our Founders to eliminate such a person from the Presidency, given that such a person would be eligible for other offices such as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or Senator?

What is the nature of our Founder's concern if somehow the concern disappears even if the person in question has ONE non-citizen parent? Is it not at least conceivable that our Founders wished to eliminate the possibility that a person's allegiance would be seriously compromised by that one parent?

In your case, your son's father was an immigrant. He was presumably residing in this country at the time of your son's birth, and based on his later becoming a citizen, one might infer that he had that intention at the time of your son's birth.

Would the circumstance be any different if your son's father and you had never married? Would the circumstances be different if your son's father had never immigrated to the U.S.? Would they be different if your son had been born in a foreign country? Would they be different if your son had never stepped foot in the U.S. but had been raised by his father?

Just hypothetically, you could have conceived a son by the future heir to the British throne and your son could be in the line of succession. Would you claim that our Founders would have considered him acceptable as a President?

111 posted on 09/01/2012 10:49:01 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Rubio’s parents were in the US with permisson of the US govt, therefore this clause would make Rubio, and Jindal likewise given the same with his parents, naturally born.


Rubio’s parents “did not have permission” from the US Govt....they came in 1957 before Castro and our special policy against Cuba. Rubio’s parents actually fled capitalist Batista regime

Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, so that would not make Rubio a NBC.

Beleieve me, the Dems will raise all kinds of Eligibility Hell if Rubio is ever a VP or Pres nominee. Unfortunately, there are too many PhonyCons who refuse to challenge Obama’s Eligibility


112 posted on 09/01/2012 11:01:02 AM PDT by SeminoleCounty (When is Fox News gonna fire Karl Rove?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
I have said from the beginning, that unless someone has researched what is the correct meaning of "natural born citizen", they do not know what it means. I have repeatedly said that Federal Judges do not understand this subject correctly, and now you have found proof that my supposition was indeed true.

Thanks for your effort. It turned out about the way I expected.

113 posted on 09/01/2012 11:02:56 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
It has been resolved by the 14th amendment - for good or bad.

No it hasn't. You can't change the nature of someone's birth by passing an amendment.

114 posted on 09/01/2012 11:06:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
This just goes to show that no one ..and I mean NO ONE..knows how a ruling would come down from SCOTUS on this issue...despite FREEPERS who claim to know exactly what would happen.

I have always assumed they would get it wrong. This just reinforces my belief that they would get it wrong. Unless someone has specifically researched this particular sub-topic of constitutional law, they DO NOT KNOW the truth. They are simply relying on left over conventional wisdom and misapplied precedent.

115 posted on 09/01/2012 11:24:50 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
The correct text reads “...The Constitution does not...say who shall be a CITIZEN...”

What's your source?

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens......”

That's an exact quote according to caselaw.com http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

BTW, my argument was that the issue regarding NBC was that of non-citizen parents. You would have seen that had you carefully read my post.

A bit trigger happy there.

116 posted on 09/01/2012 11:26:09 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
There was also US v Wong Kim Ark. I have already stated my posititon which is supported by Mark Levin and Fred Thompson, both of whom are lawyers.

Wong Kim Ark specifically excludes the words "Natural born" in their decision. Wong was ruled a "citizen", not a "natural" citizen.

I will also point out that the Minor court specifically said that the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizen."

117 posted on 09/01/2012 11:31:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Using only other words found in the Constitution, the definition of Natural Born Citizen is:

The Poserity of We the People.

In longer form, it is the Posterity of We the People for whom the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.

-PJ

118 posted on 09/01/2012 11:31:37 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
A lot of people are lawyers. I’m about to become a lawyer also. Doesn’t matter who’s a lawyer, what matters is a diligent inquiry into the original understanding of a word or phrase in the text that is unclear on the face and applying that original intent to the case at hand.

Amen!

119 posted on 09/01/2012 11:33:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
Mr. Forty-Niner, you need to reread Minor v. Happersett, unless you talking about something other than Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The Court here said that this specific issue (NBC if parents are not citizens) had not been decided nor did they need to decide it for this case (a voting right case, not a POTUS case as some in this thread have asserted).
120 posted on 09/01/2012 11:38:30 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-178 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson