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 ...
If you say I didn’t reply, it’s possible I didn’t see your message, I’ve reduced My Comments page down to 20 as suggested, and too many pings mean the page ‘turns over’ and I didn’t see it.
I’ve been busy on other stuff, but I think I do recall writing to you (or was it someone else?) on the subject of the duplicate posts...about this Todd and Sven, and my impression was that Todd had probably cut and pasted what he used as a comment from Sven’s blog, without quoting the source and trying to seem clever.
The two, Todd and Sven apparently don’t share the same e-mail addy. But I can’t be sure of that...can I? Only the Mods would know.
But to further confuse the issue, Sven appears to have his blog site up on an Australian server. What do I know? How does that work?
And today I read that he’s in Canada?
Let me go back and bury my head in research, I’m not very good at tracking comments or keeping up with who’s an obot or a concerned freeper...it’s getting far too complicated.
If you say I didn’t reply, it’s possible I didn’t see your message, I’ve reduced My Comments page down to 20 as suggested, and too many pings mean the page ‘turns over’ and I didn’t see it.
I’ve been busy on other stuff, but I think I do recall writing to you (or was it someone else?) on the subject of the duplicate posts...about this Todd and Sven, and my impression was that Todd had probably cut and pasted what he used as a comment from Sven’s blog, without quoting the source and trying to seem clever.
The two, Todd and Sven apparently don’t share the same e-mail addy. But I can’t be sure of that...can I? Only the Mods would know.
But to further confuse the issue, Sven appears to have his blog site up on an Australian server. What do I know? How does that work?
And today I read that he’s in Canada?
Let me go back and bury my head in research, I’m not very good at tracking comments or keeping up with who’s an obot or a concerned freeper...it’s getting far too complicated.
"Native" meant indigenous people of the country (see this link from rxsid for dictionary images from the 18th century of definitions of "natural" and "native" at the time.
It is hard to imagine that an illegal alien, someone still under the jurisdiction of their homeland, who has illegally crossed the border within days of giving birth, can confer native United States status to their baby.
I can be convinced by reasoned debate that a person who is not an American citizen, but who resides here under a permanent resident alien visa, could confer native status to their future child due to their declaration to remain in the United States as a resident.
I cannot be convinced that a person who has openly declared their intent to NOT remain in the United States, such as an alien under a student visa with a departure date, can confer native status to child.
If the word "native" means anything anymore, it cannot mean that temporary alien visitors can confer it to their children in foreign lands.
-PJ
“But to further confuse the issue, Sven appears to have his blog site up on an Australian server.”
Also, I know who the next Ambassador for U.S. to Australia will be.
One more time, Sven, since you’re pretending to be thick. I am NOT INTERESTED in your legalese garbage.
I DARE YOU TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH I COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS POST TO YOU:
Speaking of a TV soap opera, in the spring/summer of last year, you posted that your “precious” evidence will be unveiled on TV TALK SHOW APPEARENCE COME OCTOBER ‘12 and that your doubters and detractors would see you parading it on TV for all to see! You didn’t say a word then about the illegality of what you were about to do.
No offense, I wrote the abundantly used word, “precious,” just to be hip and to keep up with the newspeak on this thread.
Oh, BTW, don’t ask for a link to that post because FR’s database isn’t allowing to access more than the current page of previous posts. If you deny what you wrote at the time, I’m sure some FReepers will remember your tease for the fall season coming attraction.
Also, while you’re at it, what happened to your camarad-in-arms, Todd Rodriguez, Ret.? Do you have any explanation as to why would a FReeper in good standing (not a troll, God forbid!) such as yourself, resort to unacceptable behavior like that? Were you issued a warning instead of a ticket?
Who are the “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers” [sic]? Care to name some of those faux Conservative FReeper trolls? They’re having a go at each other on the thread that’s not because they’re trolls, IMO, but because they have passionate differences in opinions.
Failure to answer ANY of the above questions, and I repeat myself, will speak volumes about what you’re doing here.
I don't get how such an alien could have a child all by himself without another person involved.
Well, in the case of Obama's parents, his mother wasn't old enough to confer citizenship, so his father's age and status are the controlling facts, right?
And his father was a temporary alien here on a student visa with a departure date, which he extended, before eventually leaving, right?
So how does a temporary alien leave behind a native of another country?
-PJ
I didn’t say you, FN, didn’t answer my #771, it was addressed to Sven and HE DIDN’T ANSWER.
No problem.
Link? Proof? Or do you admit you’re lying.
Doesn’t mean a thing to me, I’m NOT being critical, I wouldn’t have noticed where your blog came from - someone mentioned the ‘au’ at the end to me. Carry on.
Whatever you might imagine common sense tells us, that is not what OUR FOUNDERS AND EARLY LEADERS told us.
As soon as they POSSIBLY could, in the course of the very FIRST Congress, which was participated in by JAMES MADISON, THE "FATHER" OF OUR CONSTITUTION, those leaders clarified that children born to US citizens abroad were to be considered natural born citizens as well.
So there goes the "birth on US soil PLUS two citizen parents" theory right out the window.
In fact, it was entirely possible, ACCORDING TO OUR LEADERS IN THE FIRST CONGRESS, WHO INCLUDED THE "FATHER" OF OUR CONSTITUTION, for a person to be born in England to American citizen parents, live his entire life there to age 21, be raised and educated there, and THEN to come to the United States of America as the NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN that he was, spend 14 years here, and be elected President at age 35.
You can dispute what you think the Founders and Framers "intended," but you can't dispute the words of the laws and Constitutional provisions that they passed.
Nor can you dispute that in early America, every single known source except for David Ramsay, who was a legally-illiterate historian and medical doctor making a self-interested sore-loser claim, completely omits ANY indication that citizen parents were every any kind of requirement for persons born US citizens on American soil.
Nor can you dispute the fact that William Rawle, a LEGAL EXPERT who wrote an authoritative guide to the Constitution of the United States, who regularly met and personally discussed political and legal issues with an entire group of Founders and Framers including both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and who was present IN PHILADELPHIA while our Constitutional Convention was being held there, had THIS to say:
It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument. Except in one instance, it gives no definitions, but it acts in all its parts, on qualities and relations supposed to be already known. Thus it declares, that no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president--that no person shall be a senator who shall not have been nine years a citizen of the United States, nor a representative who has not been such a citizen seven years, and it will therefore be not inconsistent with the scope and tendency of the present essay, to enter shortly into the nature of citizenship.
In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
This tactic won’t work.
What am I lying about?
Am I lying about you not answering direct questions?
The posts are there for all to see that your ducking and running!
Alinsky’s tactics won’t work, maybe you can try them in DU.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
-PJ
You said Rawle stated:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Well if that is true then Ted Cruz born in Canada is NOT a natural born Citizen. Also David Ramsey was not illiterate. He also stated:
“citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”
Rawle is not the only authority. I would turn to Representative John Bingham, considered the father of the 14th Amendment. He stated stated:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Obama’’s father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty called the United Kingdom.
Ted Cruz’s (who was born in Canada) father owed allegiance to Cuba
Rubio’s father owed allegiance to Cuba
Jindal’s mother AND father owed allegiance to India. They weren’t naturalized U.S. citizens before he was born.
None of them are a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen. They are 14th Amendment statute citizens. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature). The founding fathers were concerned about place of birth and the allegiance of your parents. In closing, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Free your mind.
Demanding certified, authenticated documents before trial is a delaying tactic. Obama is using the Privacy Act to ensure proof of his ineligibility is not exposed. In a civil suit, proof submitted with the complaint is ignored until the trial begins. After a motion to dismiss is overruled, the plaintiff uses a subpoena to legally obtain and submit proof of Obama’s ineligibility.
Yet, you continue to demand the Privacy Act, a Federal law, be violated to satisfy your curiosity even though internet posts and images are not allowed as proof in Court. Why is that?
1. There's no definition of "citizen" in the Constitution.
2. That's because everyone knows what a citizen is.
3. No one except a natural born citizen, or a citizen when the Constitution was adopted, can be President.
4. Senators have to be citizens for 9 years, and Representatives for 7.
5. I think I will talk a bit about citizenship, since such a discussion fits in here.
6. We have a republic, which means the people - not some monarch - rule.
7. The people of the country are its citizens.
8. As our citizens, they have certain rights, and they have certain responsibilities.
9. Some of their responsibilities include defending our country in case of war, and putting this country's interests ahead of those of all other countries, because THIS country is THEIR country.
10. Where did we get all of these citizens of the United States? It's simple. We took all the citizens from every one of our original states, lumped them all together, and all of those citizens became the citizens of the United States.
11. As citizens of New York, North Carolina, Georgia, etc., they had certain rights. Those rights came along with them when we put all of these states together to form the United States.
12. So these people became citizens of the United States. That doesn't mean that they ever stopped being citizens of their individual state. But now they are citizens of the UNITED States as well.
13. Since then, every person who has been born a citizen of any one of these states, has also been born a citizen of the United States.
14. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
Now, what is included in "all the rights and privileges appertaining to the capacity of being a natural born citizen of the United States?"
It's quite obvious. Rawle has already explicitly mentioned it, just a few paragraphs above.
Rawle is saying, explicitly, that the children born on US soil of alien parents, are natural born citizens eligible to the Presidency of the United States.
Now, if you're sharp, you'll notice that he seems to leave something out. What is it that he leaves out?
When Rawle says "therefore," he is tacitly acknowledging that every one of the original American states applied the same common law rules for citizenship that each had learned from its mother country.
In other words: Every state applied the common law rule for citizenship.
What had previously been the English common law rule for citizenship, became the American common law rule for citizenship.
By that rule, the citizenship (it had previously been called subjectship or subjecthood, back when we were under a king) of virtually all persons born within the country, whether their parents were themselves citizens or aliens, was clearly established.
That's what Rawle is tacitly acknowledging.
And it is the same thing that the Supreme Court and every other major commentator on the law has ever said since then.
In fact, just a few years later, Judge Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke would EXPLICITLY say the same thing that Rawle has just said.
Sandford would EXPLICITLY say that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the original states had adopted the English common law rule for how citizenship was created at birth.
And because of that, that rule became the AMERICAN common law rule for how citizenship was created at birth.
And because of that, when we joined the American States together to form the United States, that same rule became the UNITED STATES common law rule for how citizenship was created at birth on US soil.
In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court would repeat the same thing and note that the exact same rule for natural born subjecthood/ citizenship (depending on the era) by had ALWAYS APPLIED.
First in England, then in the Colonies, then in the States after the Declaration of Independence, then in the United States after the Constitution was established.
It's all perfectly consistent.
Let me finish by summarizing the rest of Rawle's chat:
15. Rawle says it's an ERROR to say that people have to wait until adulthood to be citizens, that they are born WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP and without allegiance to any country.
Note that that gives us an idea of one of the OTHER prominent (erroneous) ideas of citizenship that was floating around out there.
Not the idea that children were born with citizenship of the country of their parents.
The idea that they were born without citizenship of any country at all!
But Rawle says that idea is an ERROR. He is right, and he's about to PROVE his point.
16. He says it's not fair either to the child, or to his country, to consider him not to be a citizen AS A CHILD.
17. He says that our Constitution itself has settled the question of whether children are citizens at birth or not, stating that they ARE.
18. How? By acknowledging that we have NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
19. Finally, he notes what it is, generally, that creates a natural born citizen: IT IS THE PLACE OF BIRTH, without reference to the citizenship of the parents.
20. So is Rawle here saying that children born outside of the United States, to citizen parents, can't be natural born citizens as well? I don't think he is. Certainly, our first Congress believed that such people could quite legally grow up to be President as well.
He is simply outlining what is the normal and by far the major category of natural born citizens: Those who are born in the United States. And he has explicitly told us that the citizenship of their parents is completely and absolutely irrelevant.
I didn’t ask you any legal questions and your legalese garbage isn’t interesting.
I DARE YOU TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH I COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS POST TO YOU:
Speaking of a TV soap opera, in the spring/summer of last year, you posted that your “precious” evidence will be unveiled on TV TALK SHOW APPEARENCE COME OCTOBER ‘12 and that your doubters and detractors would see you parading it on TV for all to see! You didn’t say a word then about the illegality of what you were about to do.
No offense, I wrote the abundantly used word, “precious,” just to be hip and to keep up with the newspeak on this thread.
Oh, BTW, don’t ask for a link to that post because FR’s database isn’t allowing to access more than the current page of previous posts. If you deny what you wrote at the time, I’m sure some FReepers will remember your tease for the fall season coming attraction.
Also, while you’re at it, what happened to your camarad-in-arms, Todd Rodriguez, Ret.? Do you have any explanation as to why would a FReeper in good standing (not a troll, God forbid!) such as yourself, resort to unacceptable behavior like that? Were you issued a warning instead of a ticket?
Who are the “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers” [sic]? Care to name some of those faux Conservative FReeper trolls? They’re having a go at each other on the thread that’s not because they’re trolls, IMO, but because they have passionate differences in opinions.
Failure to answer ANY of the above questions, and I repeat myself, will speak volumes about what you’re doing here.
QUIT STALLING. I STILL DARE YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
Sven, if you have evidence that Obama naturalized in 1983 then by god, please submit it to Lt. Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Sheriff Departments Cold Case Posse. Delaying to reveal this evidence is not helping the United States in this Constitutional crisis. If you have that evidence then that is all it would take for Sheriff Arpaio to bring Obama’s presidency to a end.
No, as I mentioned in my last post, I don't think that follows.
And neither does any real Constitutional authority, conservative, liberal or in between.
Just because Rawle said those born on US soil to non-citizens were natural born citizens, does not in itself imply that those born to US citizens abroad are not.
Very elementary logic. Just because A is true does not mean that B is false.
Also David Ramsey was not illiterate.
He was LEGALLY ILLITERATE. And this is shown clearly by the fact that James Madison and every other member of the United States House of Representatives, except for one, slapped him down.
THIRTY-SIX TO ONE.
The only to get more unanimous than that would be if it had been 37 to 0.
And when the Father of the Constitution leads the charge, you know it's doubly authoritative.
Why are you so dead set on opposing James Madison and our other early leaders? Why do you hate the FATHER of our CONSTITUTION so much?
There is simply hardly any way that they could have slapped the legally-illiterate David Ramsay down with any more force.
Rawle is not the only authority. I would turn to Representative John Bingham, considered the father of the 14th Amendment. He stated stated:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Right. And BINGHAM WAS IN PERFECT AGREEMENT WITH RAWLE, AS WAS EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS THAT PASSED THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
You say "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" means Bingham was referring to non-citizens.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT BINGHAM HIMSELF, OR ANY OF THOSE CONGRESSMEN WHO DEBATED THE 14TH AMENDMENT, EVER SAID.
In fact, they were clear in using the terms "subject to the jurisdiction of" and "owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" exactly who they considered those terms to apply to, and who they did NOT consider those terms to apply to.
Actually, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was the BETTER term. It was the MORE ACCURATE term, and that is precisely WHY they DROPPED "owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" in FAVOR of it.
In any event, by use of either term, they were saying that the following people were EXCLUDED from citizenship by birth:
Children of foreign diplomats.
Children of invading armies.
Children of Indians in tribes.
But they CLEARLY understood BOTH of following to be NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States:
Children born on US soil of 1 or 2 citizen parents.
Children born on US soil whose parents were NOT United States citizens, except for the exceptions outlined above.
Children who met one of the above, whose parents were of white European ancestry.
Children whose parents met one of the above, whose parents were of ANY race.
That cannot reasonably be disputed by any reasonably objective person who has studied the entire debates on the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.
Obama’’s father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty called the United Kingdom.
By birther definition, yes. By the definition of Bingham and those who with him passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, no.
Again, the case of such people is probably why they DROPPED the CRA "owing allegiance to no foreign soverignty" language and made it "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14thA instead.
None of them are a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen. They are 14th Amendment statute citizens.
Legally, no. The 14th Amendment did not create a statutory new kind of citizen. And I'm at least about 95% certain there has been court ruling on this. Probably a Supreme Court ruling, but I would have to look it up. Which I probably am not going to do, since I am plainly arguing with someone who wouldn't drop the false Constitutional claim if God himself came down here and told you it was all BS.
In any event, the 14th Amendment did not create some statutory new kind of citizen.
All it did was seek to ensure that the exact same rules that had always applied to white kids born in America - YES, INCLUDING THE WHITE KIDS OF IMMIGRANT, NON-CITIZEN PARENTS - applied to those of other races.
And ESPECIALLY those who were black and/or had slave ancestry.
In closing, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
That's simply not true. The Supreme Court VERY CLEARLY found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.
And this is not disputed or even questioned by any CREDIBLE Constitutional authority, conservative, liberal, or in between.
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.