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?
You still present too pat of a "personality" to me. It's like the poster who conveniently shows up on an ADD/ADHD thread who has a child or sibling and a tale to tell that simultaneously, and conveniently, touts the liberal talking points.
And you appear by your writing to be far too intelligent to have lived the life you claim as yours, though I could be wrong and will apologize if I'm wrong. It's easy to paint a picture of a misspent youth.
C ya around.
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. ..."
There is the declarative statement of the paragraph. That specifically defines what constitutes the parameters that make a "natural-born" citizen. It is followed by a statement that recognizes that "others" have held forth an expanded view of what constitutes a "citizen."
Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
He makes his point, which goes directly to the issue, in the part I bolded. His aim is to underscore his first point so that the second issue (what "others" have said about citizenship in general) is not confused as having anything to do with the main issue.
"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
The third statement in the paragraph sews up his argument about the status of the subject before the court. That there is no doubt about his citizenship. He isn't trying to establish that he is "natural-born" just his citizenship in general. It only happens, by virtue of the facts he presents, that the criterion of "natural-born" status was described in the first statement.
When he says "there have been doubts" he is not stating a precedent in law he is stating that "some" have held different views regarding "children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents." That is a true statement. There were different views about that.
He had no authority or duty to address it in that circumstance. It would have been a violation of the law for him to say or do anything about it then no matter what he thinks.
As in ‘answer the question’ already?
Does he?
Oh, really? A Notary Public has a greater duty than a the Chief of the Supreme Court?
Why are you even asking me the question? Is there any doubt at all that I think Anderson Cooper is a Moonbat? If you think so then point to it.
Who knows? There's plenty of words written here on this forum from posters who were absolutely certain that at 12:00 noon on January 20th, 2009, the first words from the Chief Justice's mouth were going to be, "Show me the long form!"
What the hell are you talking about now? Do Notary Publics have some duty to call into question the eligibility of President-elects as they are being sworn into office? LOL
So that throws it into doubt for you too?
No. You are wrong. Here’s why:
It’s the duty of informed citizens of this Republic to understand the Constitution as well as they can. And the Constitution — at least the ORIGINAL parts of it (and even some thereafter) — were meant to be understood by intelligent informed, yet otherwise non-expert, citizens.
Since Justice Roberts is still a citizen of equal authority as a citizen, neither his post or even his history as a Judge, of itself does no elevate his wisdom about the Constitution above any other earnest, honest and intelligent citizen.
This is what being an American is all about.
I can’t say much for your intellect after that stupid response.
I’ve been trying to figure out your stupid question from the start. Now that you’ve revealed by your ad-hominem that you have nothing to say you can shove it, tweety bird.
I didn’t mean to imply that the State Department defined what a natural born citizen is, just they had a definition on their website. My assumption was that they would not create a definition out of whole cloth, but must have been guided in their definition by past precedent or court rulings, etc.
To take your point, anyone in the world (or out of it) is eligible for the presidency since the term natural born citizen has no definition?
Sorry, but that’s a bit of a circular argument.
So far the answer form O’Reilly and Cooper is I saw it on TV and in the newspaper so there is the proof. They believed Dan Rather too I bet. Both are made up.
“It seems that you are still confusing citizenship and natural born citizenship. The Constitution clearly states that no except a natural born citizen is eligible to be President”
No I am not confusing the two. I stated quite plainly that I agree that a natural born citizen is a person whose parents are both citizens, and who is born within the jurisdiction of the USA. I asked you some questions to make sure I understood how strictly you viewed the issue.
Also, I acknowledge that there are those who have questions about other situations which many people think are also NBC, and which the court has not addressed.
Some of their arguments have more merit than others, and since I am not a lawyer, or a judge, I can not even pretend to know what the Supreme Court would decide, should a case come before them. (After all I am still puzzling over how abortion can be considered constitutional).
There are a number of people on this site that think Gov Jindal is a NBC, and should run for president, and that is the only reason I asked what you thought about him.
In fact one of them told me I was wrong that only someone who had 2 citizen parents born on US soil (under the jurisdiction of the USA) is a NBC, because if that was true, then Jindal would be ineligible to run.
A hypothetical question for you: Suppose John Quincy Adams had been born in the US embassy, in France because his Father was the French Ambassador. Could he have been considered a NBC?
Embassies are after all, considered to be within the jurisdiction of their respective governments, hence some would argue that the US embassy in a foreign nation represents US soil, and you know, it is considered sovereign to the USA.
Should we ask citizens to serve their country overseas, often at great sacrifice, and deny their children NBC status? Many people would say no, if both parents are citizens of the USA, they should be NBC. A court might also rule that they are NBC, I don’t know.
Now I wish you would answer the other questions I asked you: Which Supreme Court rulings have stated that the term NBC for presidential eligibility was reserved EXCLUSIVELY for a person born of 2 citizen parents on US soil?
I would very much like to read them. You did state that their were many Supreme Court cases which used that definition. So what are they?
Which source did you use to determine that the “legal definition” of NBC is “those born in country of parents who are citizens.” I would like to be able to cite it in future debates on the issue.
Oh and a couple of other questions. Do you consider John McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen?(He was born in the Panama Canal Zone).
What about Barry Goldwater (I read somewhere that he was born in the Arizona Territory before it was a state, yet he did run for President).
Are you aware that the 1790 statute passed by Congress stated that children born out of the country to citizen parents are considered NBC? What do you think about that?
If the founders had defined the term, then it would have been harder for the term to be misinterpreted, but how were they to know it would be necessary?
Don't be surprised at that - they were just mimicing English Law [25 Edw. III, Statute 1 - 1350], the statute of Anne [can't remember the cite - 1703?], and the British Nationality Act of 1730. They all considered children born beyond the realm to fathers who were natural born subjects to be natural born also.
Hey - I just found this book written in 1728. I need to track down the cites - but this is the first time that I have read an author who specifically states that the child of an alien IS NOT a natural born subject, but rather, a Denizen. Prior to this, I had to infer it from the writngs of Blackstone, etc.
***
Cyclopaedia: Ephraim Chambers [The First Volume] - 1728
Alien: In Law, a Person born out of the King’s Allegiance, and consequently not capable of inheriting Lands in England, till naturaliz’d by Act of Paliament. See Naturalization.
Of these there are two Kinds, viz. Alien-Friends, who are of those Countries which are at peace and league with us; and Enemies, who are of Countries at war with us.
A Man born out of the Land, so it be within the Limits of the King’s Obedience beyond the Seas; or of English Parents out of the King’s Obedience, so the Parents at the Time of the Birth be of such Obedience, is no Alien, but a Subject of the King: Stat. 2. 25 Edw. III. commonly called the Statute de natis ultra mare.
[Here is the gem that I found]
Add, that if one born out of the King's Allegiance come and dwell in England ; his Children begotten here are not Aliens, but Denizens. See Denizen.
Denizen: In Law, (from the French Donaison, ie: Donation) an Alien that is Enfranchised here in England by the King's Charter, and Donation; and thereby enabled, in many Respects, to do as the King's Native Subjects do, namely, to purchase, and possess Lands, to hold any Office, or Dignity, etc. Yet is Denizenship short of Naturalization by Parliament. For a Stranger naturalized, may inherit Lands by Descent; which a Denizen cannot. Besides that, in the Charter, whereby a Person is made a Denizen, there is usually some Clause, or other, which abridges him of that full Benefit, which natural Subjects enjoy. When a man is thus Enfranchised, he is said to be Ad Fidem Regis Augliae, or, under the King’s Protection; till such Time his Goods may be seiz’d to the King’s Use.
*****
Maybe you want to check into this?
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.