Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
Herb Titus Credentials:
Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
So Mr. Titus considers himself a “respected constitutional scholar.” Obama makes the same claim.
Here is a workable link to part 2 of Herb Titus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
WHAT ???
Nana cant be president ???
1. Im 35+
2. Ive lived in the US more than 14 years
3. My NBC ancestors reach back several generations
so my father wasnt born here SO WHAT ???
and uh nor was my Ma ???
Yewz iz meanies...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Did I tell yewz I love America and Im a US veteran ???
It is unconstitutional to treat U.S. Citizens differently or as a seperate class, regardless of how they obtained their U.S. citizenship, with the only exception that the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. See Art. II, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), a U.S. SCOTUS decision which invalidated a law that treated naturalized and native-born citizens differentially under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. SCOTUS held that since no provision of the INA stripped natural-born Americans of their citizenship as a result of extended or permanent residence abroad, it was unconstitutionally discriminatory to apply such a rule only to naturalized citizens.
Consequently, only naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to be President or VP of the U.S. The determination of eligibility is the only exception the U.S. Constitution allows for distinguishing between a naturalized U.S. Citizen and any other U.S. Citizen.
If you don’t have a Certificate of Naturalization on file with DHS and you’re a U.S. citizen, then you’re eligible to be President. Obama is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.
None of those listed needed to be ‘Natualized’ and were Americans at birth. I had two children born in Greece while stationed at the American Embassy there. They were natural born americans born abroad. Do all diplomats and military give up the right to have their children be natua=rally borrn? No. Give it up - it is a silly argument.
a natural born citizen is someone that is a citizen... as there are no alternatives
if your parents are foreign nationals, you can claim their country of citizenship as well as the US. this is exactly what the founders were looking to avoid. someone with loyalties to another country
of course, this is just obvious. anyone arguing anchor babies are ‘natural born citizens’ are either being disingenuous or ignorant
This issue is often confused with the right of United States Citizen to be treated equally. This constitutional provision, however, is not about any individual’s right to equal treatment or about any person’s hopes and dreams for themselves or their children. It is about the right of the nation as a whole to have a president without question of foreign entanglement. Issues of fairness and individual rights were wisely subjugated to the national interest in having a chief executive with no question of divided loyalty.
ping
So what?
Ping for later viewing
For those who don’t or can’t watch the video:
He states, as many have stated, that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born in US and of US citizen parents.
The funny thing is, I have followed the citizen-parent claims now for what, a couple of years?
And out of some 4,500 institutions of higher learning in the United States of America, with gosh-knows-how-many Professors and other "experts" in Constitutional law (If we say even a couple per college / university, that's at least 10,000), and in a country where we have 1.1 million licensed attorneys, Herb Titus is the ONLY person who even pretends to have any real Constitutional-type credentials that is making this claim.
Not one single other person in the entire country of any stature at all supports Titus and the two-citizen-parent birthers.
And his claim is based on a grand total of 6 and a half minutes of YouTube video, and on no authority except for his own OPINION as to what the "law of nature" is.
He cites not one single authority. He gives no evidence from history or any historical or legal authority at all to support his view.
It is simply his own opinion, and he gives no evidence at all that it is based on anything other than his own personal opinion.
That's not any kind of legal evidence at all. It is simply... nothing.
AND HERB TITUS IS THE "BEST" VOICE THAT BIRTHERS HAVE.
Against that, we have... well, the entire weight of history and law.
By the way, Titus is completely clueless about where "natural born citizen" came from. It came directly from "natural born subject" in the law of England, our mother country. And THAT did come from natural law, as explained at the bottom of the graphic at the end of the post I just referenced.
By the way, since Herb Titus gives NO evidence to support his position at all except for HIS PERSONAL OPINION, then citing him is simply a pure-bred Argument From Authority.
It goes like this:
1) Herb Titus is a Constitutional scholar.
2) Herb Titus says it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
3) Therefore, it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
It is simply an argument from Titus’ supposed authority, because he gives NO OTHER EVIDENCE AT ALL.
Even this argument is absolutely disastrous for the claim that citizen parents are required.
Why?
Because for every one Herb Titus that can be produced, DOZENS (at a bare minimum) or even HUNDREDS of similar Constitutional scholars can be produced who absolutely contradict him.
And in fact, it’s not even REMOTELY difficult to produce scholars who have FAR more stature and authority than Titus, who directly contradict him.
And yes, these include DOZENS if not hundreds of CONSERVATIVE Constitutional scholars.
Obama was never qualified constitutionally to serve in the presidency regardless of where he might have been born, and admitted such when he said his father was never an American citizen.
Has any nation in world history coddled and pandered to its recent immigrants (including, in some instances, even illegal immigrants) like what is going on in the US today?
"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
The comments seem to be running decidedly against the authors.