Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The situation is getting very dire. If war breaks out and the US has to get involved, we need a real president. For starters.
Ummm, the "minority" didn't object that the ruling would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to run for president. The dissent agreed with the majority that NBCs are those persons born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It also agreed that persons born in the country to resident aliens could be citizens, but not Ark, because it was specifically forbidden by a treaty with China of which his parents were subjects. Here's where the dissent shows how it agrees on defining the latter class of citizenship:
is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens
- - -
the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens
"I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
You're helping to disprove your own point. Did you read what you just posed?? Where did the majority say that children born abroad of our citizens were not eligible to the Presidency?? Give us the direct quote and not a convoluted game of connect the dots.
It’s not objecting to the ruling of the majority but responding to a claim made by the appellee. I’ve already shown where the dissent agreed with the majority that children born in the country of resident aliens (who might someday naturalize) could be citizens at birth. For this to make sense, he would have to be objecting to his own rationale. The only thing that speculated that children of aliens might be eligible for president was from the lower ruling and the appeal of that ruling. It’s nowhere to be found in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. They only thing they would have done is make Wong Kim Ark eligible to run for Congress.
^2008, sorry.
They seemed to imply it. Their comments on that point, however, were dicta, since that wasn't Wong Kim Ark's situation.
I'm not going to go through the case again and look stuff up for you. You obviously need to read the case yourself.
The incredible thing is how grown people (at least I presume you are grown) can vehemently argue claims that simply have no basis in history or law. And insist month after month, year after year, that their fantasies are true, even though not a single court or any significant legal authority - INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS WHO PROMOTE THE CONSTITUTION - agrees with them.
It is mind boggling, really. Ah, but birthers with their baseless theories are "experts," and everyone else - legal experts who were direct friends of the Founders and US Supreme Court Justices included - "don't know what they're talking about."
No they didn't. I just gave you TWO quotes from the dissent showing that it AGREED that the children of resident aliens could be citizens. If it was objecting to the majority, then it wouldn't be agreeing that children of foreigners could be citizens.
I'm not going to go through the case again and look stuff up for you. You obviously need to read the case yourself.
You need to take your own advice. I've already read the case and know that at no time does the majority ruling ever say that children born in the country of foreigners can be eligible for the office of president or anything that even comes close to this idea.
The incredible thing is how grown people (at least I presume you are grown) can vehemently argue claims that simply have no basis in history or law. And insist month after month, year after year, that their fantasies are true, even though not a single court or any significant legal authority - INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS WHO PROMOTE THE CONSTITUTION - agrees with them.
Focus, jeffy, the issue isn't about "conservative think tanks."
Ah, but birthers with their baseless theories are "experts," and everyone else - legal experts who were direct friends of the Founders and US Supreme Court Justices included - "don't know what they're talking about."
jeffy, I've given direct quotes from the Supreme Court that directly support definitions of natural-born citizen AND 14th amendment citizenship that excludes Obama from both claims. Whining about so-called "birthers" won't change these facts. Obama is not and cannot be a natural-born citizen under these definitions.
A lot of people hadn’t really studied the issue very well in 2008, nevertheless, the Supreme Court rulings are consistnt in defining NBC as a person born in the country to a citizen father (or citizen parents).
A better word would be "understood." A lot of people are simply uninformed and others don't care. Obama's background is very unusual, and it just hasn't come up to the point where anyone would bother to see what the Supreme Court has consistently said on this issue.
You are simply and absolutely delusional.
And your view is shared by NOBODY WHO IS ANYBODY.
Nor is it even remotely in touch with what the case said.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN.
Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.
Because that is what you are.
And all of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course you and other birthers do, every day, since that is the only way you can possibly try to maintain the silly fantasy.
^ Starts with namecalling and pointless insults.
And your view is shared by NOBODY WHO IS ANYBODY.
^ Resorts to logical fallacy.
Nor is it even remotely in touch with what the case said.
^ Follows with outright falsehood.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case:
^ C&Ps large amounts of SCOTUS decision that NEVER uses the term natural-born citizen, and tries to play elaborate game of 'connect the dots.'
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
^ Now a direct admission that the C&Ped material does NOT use, apply or even imply the term natural-born citizen.
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
^ Then tries to play connect the dots again.
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
^ And now fabricates a citation and puts in quotes despite that this paragraph is NOT in the case he is citing.
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
jeffy, that's called "connect the dots." We don't have to play "connect the dots" because the court gave us a DIRECT definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." The court also gave a negative declaration that contradicts your claims, because it relies on the 14th amendment, which the court specifically said "does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens."
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
The ONLY rule that the Court applied was the 14th amendment, except they said Ark's parents satisfied the subject clause by having permanent residence and domicil. This means Obama can't even be a citizen under this ruling.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
Nonsense. You had to play connect the dots and NOTHING in what you cited says ANYTHING about presidential eligibility, while the appeal from the lower court discussed it specifically. SECOND, you're ignoring that the dissent AGREED that persons born in the country to foreign parents could be citizens as long as there wasn't a treaty to the contrary, as there was for Ark. The dissent wasn't about the ruling making Ark an NBC. It didn't. The dissent was because the treaty prevented Ark from being a 14th amendment citizen by birth.
Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.
The 1898 decision relied on Minor to settle the NBC issue: as all children born in the country to citizen parents. The 1913 Luria decision unanimously cited Minor and NOT Ark as the precedent on Art II eligibility. There's no proof that any modern Supreme Court has specifically reviewed the eligibility argument and even less proof they based anything on your misunderstanding of the Ark decision. Show us a direct quote ... and AGAIN, not a convoluted game of connect the dots. /p^ Follows with outright falsehood.
You can’t refute the analysis, which can be read and understood by anybody.
All you can do is obfuscate.
As for “connecting the dots,” the dots on which your silly theory are based don’t even exist.
"All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
As I say, there is no significant authority, conservative, liberal, or in between, who agrees with you.
But it's not just people like Supreme Court Justice O'Connor. It's the entire weight of law and history, including all of our early legal scholars and experts.
I hope Cruz is the next Vice President.
Here is the bottom line. Herb Titus, the Constitutional Scholar with impeccable credentials to make him a expert on the natural born Citizen issue would agree with this. Being born a citizen does not necessarily make for a natural born citizen. If you are born in the US to foreign citizen parent or parents, you are a naturalized citizen at birth – naturalized by the 14th amendment. If you are born abroad to US citizen parents, you are a naturalized citizen at birth – naturalized by a federal statute. But, if you are born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, no human law (which is what naturalization is) is needed to establish your citizenship at birth – you are a citizen at birth by the laws of nature – hence you are a “natural” born citizen and eligible for Article 2 Section 1 to be president. You see, a statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
He keeps this up and we may bump him up to the top slot on the ticket. After that, he can spend the rest of his life on SCOTUS (a la William Howard Taft).
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.