Posted on 04/21/2010 8:28:03 PM PDT by MrChips
OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?
And they can't be resolved without a Constitutional amendment that would specifically redefine natural born citizen.
White House slams latest 'birther' move
CNN ^ | 4/21/10 | Anderson Cooper/Ed Henry
Good post ...
Yes it has.
Natural Born CitizenU.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett
Thx - good post ...
Absolutely ...
"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject." - Dicey Conflict of Laws.
The only exceptions are that the parents are enemy invaders or diplomats.
I'm done for tonight.
This citation is a bit of a mess. If you read Wong Kim Ark closely, it acknowledges that the children of aliens were considered natural born subjects only so long as the parents remained in the country and gave allegiance to the King. They had to have permanent allegiance, thus the Wong decision hinges on the parents being permanent U.S. residents. Obama’s father was not a permanent U.S. resident. Even so, the 14th amendment only made it possible to declare such a person to be a ‘citizen of the United States’ and not a natural born citizen.
Being a birther only means you're skeptical and logical. It's much cooler to be that than a faither, sand head or paid apologist.
I always wonder why conservatives even watch those loon idiots anyway...
You know - you really should think about your replies before you post - your reply is absurd.
1. I said that SCOTUS would determine the framers' intent as applied to "natural born citizen."
2. The framers envisioned amendments to the Constitution since they knew that it was an imperfect document. That is why they dedicated a whole section to it [Article V].
3. When the Constitution was wrtitten, there were some states that wanted to have slavery abolished and that all persons [men, at the time] should be citizens [if they qualified]. But, they knew that they would NOT get the 9 votes necessary for ratification. So, they inserted this clause into Article I, Section IX:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
This allowed the southern states to keep importing slaves - but tacitly showed that the Constitution would be amended to correct this deficiency at some later date [after 1808].
If and when blacks were given citizenship - the same requirements of "natural born citizen" [as the Framers knew it] as a requirement to be POTUS would also apply to them ...
Maybe you could site a relevant passage from it. The part I posted said this...
"If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen."
That specifically says "native-born" not "natural-born" and goes on to say that a thorough discussion of "natural-born," taken from Minor v. Happersett, was the basis of their decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
If you read Wong Kim Ark closely, it acknowledges that the children of aliens were considered natural born subjects only so long as the parents remained in the country and gave allegiance to the King.
We don't have Kings so that doesn't make any sense.
SCOTUS has their nutz in a wringer on this one ...
If AZ passes this bill, and the State SOS denies because he/she CANNOT declare Obama to be NBC, his only recourse is to go to SCOTUS ...
SCOTUS would then have to choose between the following:
1. Declare Obama to be NBC, thus opening the door for an "agent provocateur" in the future to be POTUS - exactly what the Founding Fathers were afraid of ...
or:
2. Declare him NOT to be NBC, and risk the potential civil unrest that might occur ...
Actually, a SCOTUS ruling would do it. Of course future courts could overturn at a later date - absent a Constitutional amendment ...
Thank you for your service. I'm unfamiliar with Dicey, and I don't know if subjectship equates to citizenship. If so, doesn't the Dicey definition sound similar to our 14th Amendment? If so, one must then define the difference between citizen and natural born citizen as used in our Constitution.
He's not showing his real BC because he's getting political mileage out of not showing it.
He gets to sit back with a smile on his face and watch conservative leaders try and deal with birthers, disinviting them from tea parties and backpedalling and obfuscating the public statements they've made on the issue. Trying on one hand not to look like conspiracy mongers while on the understanding that they need birthers' votes.
Every conservative candidate from here on out is going to be asked if they think Obama was born in Kenya and they're all going to have to beat around the bush answering the question. Birthers are the best thing Obama's got going for him only they're too thickheaded to figure this out!
He'll release his BC when it's politically expedient for him to do so. That time isn't now.
I though that kind preferred gerbils.
It's in the conclusion of the opinion.
"...it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, ..."
" ...the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
If the only necessary factor was incidence of birth in the United States, there's no need to go on and on about the parents having permanent domicil and the child always having lived in the United States. This is important because the common law hinges on remaining within the country. Also, note that it doesn't declare the plaintiff to be a natural born citizen, but instead a 'citizen of the United States."
Below is a look at the common law citiation from Wong Km Ark, where it emphasizes that in England, children of aliens were natural born subjects if their parents remained in the country and gave allegiance to the King. This concept continued, supposably in some colonies in the United States, with citizen substituting for subject. The only contention I have is that we know some colonies only considered the children of British subjects to be natural born subjects, but not aliens.
"Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."
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.