Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
In fact since they have accepted Obama, whose father was a British citizen who had no intention to become a US citizen, you might argue they have already done so.
Your’s is a reasonable guess but not what our courts and Framer's intended. Having put their lives on the line, they were suspicious of doubt, so suspicious because of how hard it is to know the intent of an ambitious adult, that they denied automatic citizenship to the children of native-born colonists (born on the soil of their colony, remember, we were a British subjets, if the parent died in the revolution. The reasoning was that with the parent dead, there was no way to tell on whose side he fought.
Someone who is a resident has not declared sole allegiance to our Constitution. We had many residents with homes in Europe or England and in The U.S. after the revolution. They might be simply, perhaps wisely, keeping open the option to chose the winning side. For one of these to become President could mean the end of Adam's “nation of laws” (he used “empire” but we get the idea) and not men. Washington was afraid of opportunists from Europe and gave orders to deny non-citizens field grade officer appointments during the war.
Congress cannot “remove the disability by statue.” Congress cannot, by statue, change the meaning of The Constitution. This is called separation of powers, and was clarified by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same Marshall who cited Vattel as the most concise source defining natural born citizenship, and repeated “born on the soil of citizen parents.”
To finish your observation about parents intending to become U.S. citizens, which means swearing sole allegiance to our Constitution, here are the words of Congressman John Bingham, who was AG when he prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, and as principal author of the 14th Amendment said to the House in 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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….
Most with enough concern to read this thread would find the most complete explanations of these issues at the legal blog of Mario Apuzzo, http://puzo1.blogspot.com . Mario, representing a remarkable patriot Commander Charles Kerchner, who personally sent registered letters to Congress in the Summer of 2008 asking them to vet Obama as they had McCain on five separate sets of hearings. Their case is in the docket of the Supreme Court now. The more who understand the more likely the Court, which, according to Justice Clarence Thomas, “is evading the issue,” the more likely they will realize the cost to trust in government if they continue to hide.
Also, right here on Free Republic, rsxid has created a remarkable collection of discussions, reasonably free of trolls whose mission it is to cloud the issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts
What if the parents are here legally with Green Cards? That was my parents situation. I was born in the USA and carries a US Passport. At the age of 18, I had to choose whether to be a US Citizen or a citizen of the Netherlands, where my parents were born.
Much crying and gnashing of teeth aside, there are two, and precisely two “kinds” of citizen. There are natural born citizens, and there are naturalized citizens. That’s it. Anybody that thinks there are any other kinds of citizen has just gotten too buried in the birther illogic to see clearly anymore.
Either you get citizenship by birthright, (i.e. born here or under U.S. jurisdiction, like diplomats serving overseas) or you were born somewhere else and must acquire citizenship by application later in life.
The rule: If you are born a US citizen, you are eligible to run for President.
So anyone in that situation can run for President. Doesnt mean they will win, but anyone born and raised in the US is on a level playing field. That’s the meaning and the intent of the 14th amendment, so we did not have 2nd class citizenship.
If we want to address the anchor baby situation, we can, by using the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause to limit it to those born to legal residents and exclude those born to illegal aliens.
14th Amendment Section 1.
I don't like it either but the courts say otherwise. The only solutions I can think of would be to create a different type of Birth Certificate or to Amend the Constitution. The Courts, States, and Congress have their hands tied by Court decisions regarding citizenship.
Quite a few of the arguments I am seeing here is simular to what was used in the Dred Scott decision of 1857.
“Then why is there no comment in any of the annotated copies of the US Constitution that say NBC is superceded or defined by Amendment 14?”
I assume you’re being facetious, but I’ll answer anyway and say, duh, obviously because it’s never come up in a legally significant manner. There’s no Marbury, Calder, Dred Scott, Lochner, Brown, Roe, Citizens United-type case to point to.
No
sadly, I think you nailed it in post 21.
“Let me ask you something. What’s the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen?”
I find it degrading to answer, but okay. Have you ever heard of naturalized citizens? They’re the difference.
In order to be President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen, not a Citizen.
“’m glad it’s so easy for you to predict who would and would not be loyal, but what on earth does that have to do with the law? Nothing.”
Good point.
Folks, read and ponder this: We correctly abhor when liberal judicial activists put their own views into the law, and twist the law to get to an end they desire. But by twisting the 14th amendment and the laws to NOT say what it obviously does, and making up our own ‘rules’ about what eligibilty *should* be instead of what it *is*, those arguing against Presidential eligibility for ALL who are born US citizens are doing the same thing. They are putting their own biases and preferences ahead of what the law says.
Lets not do that. The law is clear: Anyone who is born here is a citizen from birth and thus ‘natural-born citizen’.
If you had to choose, then you weren't natural born, because you were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, there was another jurisdiction.
“Since the US Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations”, which is a reference to Vattel’s Law of Nations that defines a natural-born citizens as (Book 1, Section 19, Paragraph 212): “
I really want to be polite, but this argument is obviously dead wrong for several reasons.
First, your link goes to Article I, Section 8 - which deals with the “Powers of Congress.” It has nothing to do with the natural born citizen reference in Article II
Second, the quote makes it obvious that the “Law of Nations” does not refer to any book. The Consitition reads:
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
Unless Vattel’s book was in fact agreed by nations to be binding international law (which it wasn’t), the quote obviously doesn’t refer to Vattel’s book, or any other book for that matter.
Finally, our grammer rules are not the founders’ grammer rules and sometimes they capitalized nouns as they do in German.
In short there is no serious argument that Vattel’s book controls anything. If the framers wanted an explicit requirement that ‘natural born citizen’ meant that the parents had to be citizens at the time of the birth the could’ve put it in. They didn’t.
There is no distinction in the law between ‘natural born citizens’ and simply ‘born citizens.’ There is not one single official document, no birth certificate, no passport, etc. that draws such a distinction. That ought to tell you something.
Nope, the President must be a Natural Born Citizen, not a citizen. The only time a citizen could become President was at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
“Also, anyone illegally entering the US is in violation of the jurisdiction, and therefore should not be a citizen.”
I’m at a loss as to what the phrase “in violation of the jurisdiction” could mean. You’re either under jurisdiction or not. One cannot “violate” a jurisdiction. You can violate laws, but if you’re dealt with as a criminal for doing it afterwards, as are illegal aliens, you are under U.S. jurisdiction.
Anyone who believes illegals aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction should try visiting a prison.
Right.
Justice Gray who wrote that Wong Kim Ark opinion ignored the intent and meaning of the law makers. He even said so tersely in his 1898 opinion. Gray acted as an activist judge. And those trolls on this thread the 14th Amendment or did the WKA decision turn naturalized citizens [per 14th Amendment] into instant natural born citizen. That can't be done.
“Also, anyone illegally entering the US is in violation of the jurisdiction, and therefore should not be a citizen. “
The law SHOULD be changed so that this is the case, but of course under current law, we are allowing children born to illegal aliens and those on tourist visas to acquire citizenship at birth.
“How can they be legal when they weren’t naturalized yet?”
Read the article. They were here on visas.
Again, it is VERY SIMPLE. If you were/are a citizen from birth, go ahead and run for President. You obviously were - your case is like John McCain, who was born outside the US to US citizen parents. Eligible.
There are only two types of US citizen - natural-born and naturalized. If you are a US citizen, you are either:
1) A citizen from birth, aka natural-born citizen
2) A naturalized citizen (via immigration process)
Everyone in category #1 is eligible to be President.
As per the 14th amendment, Jindhal is in #1. Thus he is eligible to be President.
Thank you.
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.