Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship

WND ^ | 9/01/2012 | Larry Klayman

[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.”

[KarlInOhio]

I find it incredibly hard to believe someone who claims Scalia doesn't know the difference between being born in the USA and being naturalized...

It's not a matter of whether a naturalized citizen can become president. The question comes down to whether there are two classes of citizen (natural born and naturalized) or three (natural born, citizen at birth but not "natural born" and naturalized). Since there are two and only two jobs where that distinction matters, the president and vice president, I'm not surprised that it has never been clarified by law.

[EDINVA]

There was, alas, a “grandfather” clause that one might assume was included for a reason, wouldn’t you think?

[hinckley buzzard]

Exactly. Justices are elusive for the express purpose of avoiding gadflies like Klayman. Scalia didn't want to see a quote from him show up in Klayman's next mass fund-raising letter.

[RegulatorCountry]

According to the understanding of the term laid out in Minor v. Happersett, the child's status is questionable. I suspect any resolution to the question would devolve upon the presence of any competing claims as to citizenship at birth upon the child by the nation to which his father belonged.

You may not like that answer, but it is a legitimate answer. The Commander-in-Chief of the US military cannot belong to another nation, it would be a foriegn entanglement creating questionable allegiance that could well prove foolhardy or even suicidal in the event of war involving the United States and that nation, directly or indirectly.

[PapaNew]

I think it's a matter of record that Rubio's parents were residents but not citizens at the time of this birth. They became citizens a few years later. The question of NBC as relates to parental citizenship has not been clearly resolved from what I can tell. I see a SCOTUS case on the horizon which is why I think Scalia was honest enough and wise enough to not answer this guy's question.

I'm a believer in original intent and understanding in construing the meaning of Constitutional text. I don't know what English common law (much of the framers' point of reference) was at the time regarding this and SCOTUS hasn't clarified it as far as I know.

I think the framers intentionally laid down broad legal standards within which future generations would resolve (NOT by CHANGING the constitution from the bench, but by APPLYING the original meaning to the issue of the day). Having said that, I'm inclined to think without deciding that if a child is native born to parents who obviously demonstrate their loyalty to the U.S. by subsequently becoming citizens nothing unpatriotic notwithstanding, the child should be considered a NBC. That's my gut feel, not the result of a diligent research which I hope would agree - but if it clearly did not, then as judge or Justice, I would have to rule the other way regardless of my personal views. If an honest and diligent inquiry came up with that it could go either way, then I think allowing Rubio to be an NBC would not be an unjust decision.

[Lady Heron]

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.”

You sat on a case about this very subject and you did not even study and try and figure out what the founders meant by 'natural born citizen'.

Yeah, sheepish, deer in the headlights, stuttering reply and you do not think to wonder why some Americans who take time to read are stunned by this court and its lack of keeping to the Constitution as you swore to do. BS...your reply would have been bold and well thought out trouncing the opposition with facts if you could defend your position.

Sadly, even I who has just scanned a few arguments on this subject could reply with the facts on what was wrong with his statement....and this is supposed to be the best conservative judge left on the court?????

[greeneyes]

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

***********************************************************

Statutes passed by Congress pertain to naturalized citizens. Based on my research, Changing or clarifying Article II section 1 would require an amendment to the Constitution.

[PapaNew]

I hope so, but I want the SCOTUS decision (almost certain there will be a case) to be the result of honest and diligent inquiry into the framers intent. If that honest inquiry still comes up with an ambiguous result, then I don’t think it would be unjust to rule Rubia a NBC.

[GBA]

If both parents are citizens of the country where their child is born, then there are no other countries who have any claim, legal or otherwise, to that child's citizenship.

However, if either or both parents are foreign or dual citizens then that is no longer the case.

Why would our FF, while reaching for the highest standards they could for this new country they had barely gotten started, go with anything but the most pure form of citizenship for the individual who would posses a third of the government's power?

They did not want divided loyalty or divided allegiance nor any other foreign claim, legal or otherwise, on the person holding the highest, single most powerful position.

It's simple logic.

The highest, most pure form of citizenship is born in country to citizen parents. That's the best you can get. Why would the FFs go with a lesser quality of citizenship with all the potential problems, loyalties and allegiances for the single most powerful person in their new government?

Natural born, not native born, is what they chose and what some have then misconstrued for their own benefit.

As a result, now we are dealing with the problems the FFs were trying to avoid.

[originalbuckeye]

My son has never lived in any other country. He was given an appointment to and attended one of our fine Military colleges. He is on active duty as a Marine as I write. I cannot believe anyone could suggest he has allegiance to any other country but this one.

[Drew68]

No, Obama’s a case of avoidance, not resolution.

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.

[Perdogg]

You may want to provide a complete quote from John Bignham in 1862.

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens?but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."

[House Atreides]

Scalia didnt look and sound flumuxed because he didnt know the answer...

he did not want to put himself in the position of having to recuse himself from an Obama Natural Born Citizen case, by taking a side on it, before a decision is to be made.

what a jerk the author is.
***********************************************************************

Spot on Vaquero.

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re arguing from emotion on behalf of your grandchild. That’s known as a conflict of interest. You are not impartial. You’d have to recuse yourself if you were on the USSC, hearing a case upon this matter.

Why, do you suppose, are people so offended at the prospect of US military being placed under UN control? It’s the well founded fear that the best interests of our military and our country may not be the first priority of the UN. The same fear is reasonable regarding the Commander-in-Chief.

Does this child have any other form of citizenship at birth?

[Mr Rogers]

It HAS been clarified. The WKA decision is clear, which is why every case that has gone to judgment cited it and decided that anyone born in the USA is a NBC.

I think the only question that has never been clarified by the courts is if a person born abroad to two citizen parents is a NBC. State courts have said yes, but the Supreme Court hasn’t faced a case like that.

[greeneyes]

Who is this guy? He's gone from assertion to conclusion with no argument or evidence. The Constitution is not always as clear as the nose on your face. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. It takes diligent research sometimes to uncover the intended meaning and original understanding of the text, sometimes going back to English common law which was much of our framers point of reference.

The point is, the Constitution doesn't mean what somebody WANTS it to mean. It's meaning is found in the understanding of the text which, again, may be clear, but should be verified by looking at the historical context of the intent and understanding of the framers.

*********************************************************

Larry Klayman is the founder of JUDICIAL WATCH and FREEDOM WATCH. He is a strong advocate for ethics in government. His FOI requests during the Clinton years brought out lots of “dirt” that was never really reported by LSM.

Decades ago, when I was in school, I was taught that one must be born in the USA of citizen parents in order to be certain of eligibility to be president, and that was the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

However, I researched this issue extensively in 2008, long before the term “birhers” appeared. Legal scholars make decent arguments for both sides of this issue. A specific definitive case has never fully settled the issue, according to State Department guidance for US embassies regarding citizenship.

The issue about Obama being born in Hawaii, to me was more of a red herring than anything. The real issue was hiding in plain sight and admitted by Obama and team-His father was not a citizen.

Once elected, however, they could claim the people have spoken, and determined that having a foreigner for a parent should not be a dis qualifier. Courts will evade the issue, because they don't want to be seen overturning an election.

It worked.

[originalbuckeye]

This child is my son. He was born in America. I was born here. My husband was born across the pond and is a naturalized citizen of the USA. I believe the Law would find my son a Natural Born Citizen.

[PapaNew]

Uh, you're forgetting something. The Leftists bury issues which is why you've got Justices on SCOTUS who are ready, willing, and able to deal with this subject, but you've got a hard Leftist voting block who won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. The guys on the Right have a tendency to bring them to light even if it seems to go against their cause. When Obama's gone, I think sooner or later, it will come up, maybe with Rubio. When Rubio decides he wants to run for POTUS, he would probably WANT it to have been resolved so that he can honesty move forward without time wasted on the subject or possibly color his candidacy with an Obama-like bad taste in conservative's mouth.

As usual Rubio's case on the Right is plain for all to see. Obama on the Left is full of smoke and mirrors and hasn't at all verified his valid citizenship and certainly is not honest and forthright about it IMO.

[faucetman]

Scalia can't answer such a question! It's the most loaded question you could ask him. Did you also ask him when life begins?

Do I think Scalia and other so called Conservatives on the court will PUNT when it comes to NBC decision?, YES I DO.
Especially after the Robert's decision on Obamacare.

We will get no help from the court.

[RegulatorCountry]

You're certainly free to believe anything you want to believe, but according to the understanding of the term laid out in Minor v. Happersett,, his status is questionable.