And you've been saying that from the beginning too. You are like the little dog that thinks he chased the car away.
Posted on 01/22/2015 2:41:41 PM PST by big bad easter bunny
The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.
Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.
This makes no relevant point. During this period in History, the terms were regarded as interchangeable, though a citizen and a subject have very different characters. “Subject” eventually fell out of usage.
Naturalized at birth through statute. If you go back and look at the applicable statute, it will like as not say "naturalization" on the relevant section.
Title III-Nationality and Naturalization
Chapter 1-Nationality at Birth and By Collective Naturalization
What? Where does it say that?
The Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen. Cruz is a natural born citizen. The Constitution says nothing about the President's parents.
That these requirements were later removed does not have any bearing on the artificial nature of this sort of citizenship. Congress can put them back on at any time they wish.
Such citizenship is wholly at the mercy of whatever congress feels like doing with it.
That you note this makes it all the more unfathomable as to why you thought quoting those decrees was relevant.
You obviously didn't learn the lesson I taught you back when you brought The Venus into the discussion. A refresher:
1. Marshall was writing in dissent.
2. Citizenship wasn't even an issue in the case.
3. The version of Vattel he utilizes doesn't even use the term "natural born citizen," which alone destroys your argument that Marsall is trying to give his opinion on he Article II meaning.
Likewise, Bushrod Washington isn't opining on U.S. citizenship law, he also omits use of the term "natural born citizen." He's stating what the writers on the law of nations state, but as I instructed you before, citizenship is a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law.
"Invincible ignorance" is an apt label for you.
You are just one mass regurgitation of Dr. Conspiracy and his Obama justifying minions. Your assertions are contrary to the best interests of this nation, and you are effectively an enemy, just as is "citizen" Obama.
Staley Ann Dunham wasn’t of “legal age” was supposed to be Obama’s problem...even if born in Hawaii.
Starting around September, 2013, I recall several persons who were implacable in their assertion that Vattel sec. 212 was incorporated into Art. II, sec. 1 of the Constitution being shown the door. Yours is a minority position even here. I'm just showing why it's a minority position stretching back to the time of the Constitution as well.
You are deliberately misleading people. It was not a minority position in 1787, it was a majority position. I find good provenance for it going back to Franklin, Washington, Wilson, Madison, Marshall, and so on. All your side ever comes up with is much later day lawyers with no good connection to the constitutional convention, and as often as not decades after the fact. (Like Rawle. 1825)
You studiously ignore the very good authorities who are directly traceable back to the Philadelphia convention or the ratifying legislatures among the various states. You constantly assert what people not involved with the debates think about things, and ignore what those who were intimately involved in the debates had to say.
You advocate an interpretation that has no useful purpose and is therefore in violation of the Supreme Court's long stated principle that the constitution cannot be read in such a manner as to have no effect.
You advocate an interpretation that is even now causing the nation to be overrun by false "Americans" in the guise of anchor babies and birth tourists, none of whom have any loyalty to the nation at all.
You are nothing but a trouble maker intent on spreading incorrect and ignorant information about the topic, and I suspect you are probably part of the Obama defense team because it is the most plausible explanation for your obsession with this topic to the exclusion of pretty much any other subject. If you talk about anything other than defending Obama, I can't recall seeing it. A quick check of your postings show them to be on no other topic than defending Obama's legitimacy.
Why do you feel so compelled to justify this man? Why do you feel so compelled to explain away anything that smacks of a criticism of his legitimacy? Obama Team member explains your actions very well.
Stanley Ann's age is irrelevant if he was born inside the United States. Her age is only pertinent if he was not.
‘You can’t teach anybody anything because you have nothing of value that anyone should want to know.’
True and false. On an objective scale true, but in a more limited context, some of the things our resident liberal teaches us are actually quite interesting.
First, he taught us—or tried to teach us—that the press is neutral. Since he throws hissy fits whenever he’s not quoted exactly, here it is:
‘I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.’
Now where else on FR could you possibly learn that the press is evenhandedly ‘versus all’? I bet you thought the press was pro-liberal and anti-conservative. Our resident liberal ‘teaches’ us otherwise.
[Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3211679/posts?page=312#309]
Another really fascinating thing he taught us was that Obama’s executive amnesty is a good thing. I asked our resident liberal for an example of Obama treating US citizens more favorably than he treats illegals, foreigners & terrorists, and the Obot cited executive amnesty. [A portion of it is said to favor citizens. More on that immediately below.] Now where else on FR could you ‘learn’ that executive amnesty is a good thing? Nowhere, that’s where. [Link below]
Here is the most interesting thing of all. Namely, that within executive amnesty, Obama shows preference to US citizens over illegals. Tell me you can top that for a learning experience? Nobody can.
Here are the details:
‘But even within Obama’s recent executive order, illegals who have criminal records still get deported where citizens in such a position do not. So that is one counter-example where illegals get treated less favorably. So your question is answered.’ [Note: it was a ‘memorandum,’ not an EO. Obama lied, and Obots believed him.]
Now that right there is prime teachable stuff. Who knew Obama had the option of deporting legal American citizens just because they have a record? Of course, our resident liberal is coy about exactly where Obama would deport such US citizens to. It’s kind of a ‘That’s for me to know and you to find out’ deal. But the fascinating part is simply the concept of deporting US citizens with criminal records. You see, Obama would be doing that right now, except that he likes US citizens more than he likes illegal aliens. So he magnanimously allows US citizens with criminal records to remain in the country. That Obama, he just loves him some American citizens—what a guy!
An especially interesting aspect of this last point pertains to ‘criminal Americans’ of color. I.e.: if Obama ever decides he’s tired of discriminating against non-Americans, and he opts to treat everyone equally [never put it past him; he already said US citizens have no right to say who can or can’t live in their own country] to what country will he deport our citizens of color? Would it be racist to deport African Americans to Africa? Or would it be racist *not* to deport African Americans to Africa? [Bear in mind, please, that I am personally opposed to deporting any and all US citizens; I am merely exploring the intriguing insights of our resident moonba...oops, I meant ‘liberal.’]
Perhaps sometime our trouble-making disrupter will flesh out his comments. Meanwhile I ask you, where else on FR could you learn that Obama has the option of deporting legal US citizens?
Nowhere, that’s where.
[Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3231278/posts?page=51#81]
‘I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.’
Now where else on FR could you possibly learn that the press is evenhandedly ‘versus all’? I bet you thought the press was pro-liberal and anti-conservative. Our resident liberal ‘teaches’ us otherwise.
What he says is a non-sequitur. Raising stakes does not necessarily produce evidence. Occupying the office is not "proof." A majority often just means that all the fools were on the same side. Oh, and no conservative believes the press is objective. Liberal Democrat Union Members from New York City are not objective. They are extremely biased towards their party.
Perhaps sometime our trouble-making disrupter will flesh out his comments. Meanwhile I ask you, where else on FR could you learn that Obama has the option of deporting legal US citizens?
And this is just another reason why no one should waste their time reading his drivel. He really should have been zotted a long time ago.
‘He really should have been zotted a long time ago.’
Hear, hear.
This reminds me of a line from the wonderful Michael Caine movie, Without a Clue. As you probably know, Caine plays the role of a drunken, out of work actor recruited (by Watson) to live the part of Sherlock Holmes. At one point Caine is in a large tavern and two burly men walk up to him. As always, pretending to be Holmes, Caine says:
‘Ah, gentlemen. And what can I do for you? A mystery to be solved?
To which one of the thugs replies: ‘You might say that. There’s a little matter of a gambling debt, and the mystery is why you ain’t paid it.’
To rephrase your comment:
‘There’s a little matter of an Obot troll, and the mystery is why he ain’t been zotted.’
Poppycock. Other than David Ramsey (who was shot down by a vote of something like 36-1) and this Samuel Roberts (an obscure figure, to be sure), there's no one in this time period espousing this "two citizen parent" stuff.
I've already pointed out the inherent difficulty in your position. The term "natural born" in the English common law and Blackstone came with a clear jus soli meaning. And I've shown where in the period between 1776 and 1787 there are a number of instances where "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" are used in interchangeable fashion. By contrast, there is no usage in this period where "natural born citizen" has the suggestion of "from like parents."
So when we arrive at the drafting of the Constitution, it is inherently unreasonable to suggest that the framers chose a term that had an obvious linguistic predecessor and previous interchangeable usage with a term in the common law, that they ascribed to that term a different, jus sanguinis meaning, and that they did this without one shred of discussion or documentation that this is what they were doing! Try explaining that one.
The eminently more reasonable explanation why writers like Swift (writing 8 years after the Constitution), Tucker (writing 16 years afterward), and Kent (writing before Rawle) state that our law here is jus soli is precisely because the linguistic connection between Article II and the ECL is unmistakable. Your attempt to lay the blame at Rawle's feet and suggest he started some change in view is utterly ridiculous given there are eminent writers before him saying the same thing! Now THAT'S misleading people. Your read on history is result-drive and inept. .
And this is right before Joseph Story weighs in. Story's status as one of our nation's preeminent Supreme Court Justices and his significant influence cannot be denied:
"One of the towering figures in U.S. Legal History, Story shaped U.S. law both as a judge and as the author of a series of legal treatises. Some legal commentators believe Story's treatises were as influential in the development of nineteenth-century U.S. law as the works of the English jurists Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke had been earlier."Source
And recall his words:
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
See, unlike with your misplaced reliance on Marshall and B. Washington, Story actually says this is the rule of law here. A writer noting "this is what Vattel says" is just stating Vattel's view. Neither of your sources then goes on to say "and his rule is the rule we follow in the U.S." Story, by contrast, states the American rule. I find good provenance for it going back to Franklin, Washington, . .
Neither of whom said one peep about "citizen parents" being necessary.
. . . Wilson, . .
If you have in mind the statement I suspect you do, that doesn't help you either.
Madison, Marshall, and so on.
You see it, because you see in a source that wish you desperately wish to see, even though in most cases the writer isn't stating what you claim.
All your side ever comes up with is much later day lawyers . . .
Oh, c'mon, this is just utterly laughable. Swift (writing in 1795) and Tucker (writing in 1803) are "latter day lawyers?" How on earth do you manage to write this crap and keep a straight face when in the next breath you're touting Samuel Roberts (writing in 1817)?
You studiously ignore the very good authorities who are directly traceable back to the Philadelphia convention or the ratifying legislatures among the various states.
Like who? So far no one you've cited (other than Roberts) purports to say the rule of law in the U.S. is jus sanguinis. And Roberts is a relative nobody. If you think he traces back to the Convention merely on account of breathing the air in Philadelphia as he writes 30 years later, then I can as equally find a Constitutional pedigree in Tucker and Story, who were appointed and nominated, respectively, by James Madison. Right?
You constantly assert what people not involved with the debates think about things, and ignore what those who were intimately involved in the debates had to say.
Stop the posturing. You've not cited to a single person "intimately involved in the debates" who purports to say anything to the effect of "our American rule is that one needs citizen parents to be a 'natural born citizen.'" Your sources say that only in your imagination.
You advocate an interpretation that has no useful purpose
Au contraire. The concern of the Framers was that some rich European noble would cross the pond and insinuate his way into American politics. Making the president be born here severely curtails the sort of political intrigue and manipulation that had been commonplace on the European continent for centuries. It's noteworthy that none of the Framers ever expresses doubt about the allegiance of someone born on American soil.
. . .and is therefore in violation of the Supreme Court's long stated principle that the constitution cannot be read in such a manner as to have no effect.
Under my interpretation, it has an effect. It's amusing how Birthers try to pick some general rule of interpretation stated somewhere by the SCOTUS and argue from there to a "citizen parent" conclusion, all the while ignoring the interpretive approach taken by the SCOTUS when it actually analyzed the "natural born citizen" clause. And, of course, we all know that when it took up that clause, it said the way to understand it is by reference to the language and history of the English common law.
You advocate an interpretation that is even now causing the nation to be overrun by false "Americans" in the guise of anchor babies and birth tourists, none of whom have any loyalty to the nation at all.
I advocate the interpretation that was stated by Swift in 1795, Tucker in 1803, Rawle in 1829, Story in 1830, by a whole host of others in between and beyond, and above all the SCOTUS in 1898. The Framers chose the term "natural born citizen" in 1787, at a time and in a context that makes it well-nigh impossible to assert (in the absence of positive evidence) that they understood this as to the simple idea of birth status any differently from the ECL counterpart. At that time the U.S. was a sparsely populated country bordered by a continent of unfathomable vastness. They didn't adopt "NBC" with "birth tourism" in mind, as that concept is totally outside the world they inhabited.
I know you loathe anchor babies and birth tourism (and there is much reason to object). But the answer is not to take an anachronistic view of history and pretend persons said more than they in fact said or take a distorted view of law and argue cases said what they didn't say.
You are nothing but a trouble maker intent on spreading incorrect and ignorant information about the topic,
The Owner of this site called the "two citizen parent" theory something like the musing of "sea lawyers." (I'm not exactly sure what that meant, but it didn't sound complimentary). Now, I know you can't respond to this comment. But you have to understand why I roll my eyes every time you posture that I'm espousing some anti-American, erroneous view of history and law when my position on this issue is in accord with the owner/moderators of this site.
I suspect you are probably part of the Obama defense team because it is the most plausible explanation for your obsession with this topic to the exclusion of pretty much any other subject.
It's a niche topic. It appeals to my interests of history and law. And as internet topics go, the Birther issues are someone self-containing: the NBC clause either requires citizen parents or it does not; Obama either was born in Hawaii or he was not. The Vattel theory is historically and legally a non-starter. As to birth, all the available evidence points to Hawaii, whereas I've not seen a shred of credible evidence beyond speculation demonstrating a birth anywhere else.
Why do you feel so compelled to justify this man?
I'm not justifying the man. The SCOTUS said 100 years before Obama there is no "two citizen parent" requirement to Article II "NBC." And seeing the consistent history supporting that view from Swift on, the Court got it right. I got into this topic when I happened upon some comment somewhere stating that Obama wasn't eligible because of his father, with a cite to the Minor case (a case I'd never heard of). So I looked it up, and realized immediately that person was badly misreading the case. Then I looked around a bit more and found a whole host of really, really bad judicial misinterpretation going on and some pretty bad history to boot. So I weighed in.
Another one of these walls of text? I’m not going to read it.
Of course not. That way you can pretend your argument remains intact. I'm very familiar with that avoidance technique: the ostrich pose.
You got a very mild hissy fit. To see our resident liberal get really wound up, you would need to ping him to a thread that illustrates how much Obama loves terrorists and hates Americans. Then the wailing, whining, griping and sniveling really kicks into gear.
I just hope no one pings our resident liberal to the video below. It’s just a snippet of Obama’s foreign policy stupidity/ineptitude, but our resident liberal’s mental and emotional meltdown could be epic:
Obama’s Foreign Policy Pronouncements Undone by Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTbMdKqZGLU
And you've been saying that from the beginning too. You are like the little dog that thinks he chased the car away.
No need. This is what he has always looked like in my mind's eye.
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.