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.
Tublecane, why is it required in the constitution that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen and a Senator just a Citizen?
You really are delusional. See post 339.
Good luck on your running for office, Tublecane.
It is very clear from the correspondence that existed between our Founders, that they used Vattel extensively as a source.
Are you a native-born American? I am.
So what if Obama used it. It has no legal distinction from other citizens in terms of rights or how citizenship is acquired so it made no sense on that rather inaccurate chart.
As a term doesnt mean any more than my being a helio-sneezing American.
They can not grasp, let alone comprehend that when the Declaration of Independence declared that ALL political bonds were dissolved, that meant the form aka feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance & jus soli subjectship was also dissolved. If it hadn't been, the founders wouldn't have had the authority of the common law & the law of nations to break from England & the United States would not have been recognized as a Federal Union of Sovereign Political States by the rest of world and the French would not have had the authority of law to come to the aid of the US.
“I show you the Elg case where this lady was not running for president and she was declared natural born by the Supreme Court”
Makes no difference. Decisions include extraneaous information all the time. We cannot construe the presence of an unnecessary affirmation in one as evidence against their absence in another. You assume too much.
“A natural born citizen is in all respects affirmed”
Oh, I see. The argument here is that you take them to have said they exhausted all manners by which a person could be a natural born citizen. And since an Ark-type was not included, that means Ark-types can’t be president. If that was the case, I’d imagine they’d address soil—or “native born”—babies and shoot them down. But they couldn’t have, since you’d gleefully publish it if they did.
How can you justify its absence here, if SCOTUS were being truly exhaustive, covering any and “all respects.” Is it not an indication that they soil babies were outside their purvue? I advise we wait for a case to directly address the issue, rather than relying on a definition of “a natural born citizen...in all respects” which eschews judgement on a large and well-known type.
“No, foreigners who gives birth to a baby on US soil is not a natural born citizen.”
I assume you misspoke here, because foreigners who gave birth wouldn’t be, no. But the babies would, because citizen from birth = natural born citizen.
So if Obama wanted to be President why didn’t he use Natural Born Citizen on his website?
1. A “natural born” citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that’s two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) — think Ronald Reagan — in this case, parentage is important AND birthplace is important.
2. A citizen “by statute” is any person born of US citizen parent(s) outside the United States — think John McCain — in this case, parentage is important AND birthplace is not important.
3. A “native born” citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland — think Barack Obama — parentage not important AND birthplace important — a.
4. Parentage not important AND birthplace not important — a “naturalized” citizen is a citizen as the result of a process — think Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Wrong.
That long screed shows a desperate attempt to turn facts and evidence upside down to prove a point that is wrong. Trying to tie Vattel in with every used of the term ‘law of nations’ was and is laughable. Founders used a number of sources, Blackstone for law, and many others for their ideas. Vattel was and is of almost no importance.
Ah, but he WAS cited in a few places, including the infamous worst decision ever, Dred Scott.
“They were not under obligation to discuss it in the Elg case either, but they did”
That ranks up there with saying Obama’s ineligible because he hasn’t produced his birth certificate. It’s non-evidence, nothing more. Whatever extraneous affirmations they made in the Elg case has no bearing on the extraneous affirmations they didn’t make in the Ark case.
Earth to WOSG earth to WOSG come in WOSG... Too much obtuse static....
The cased is CLEAR that her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth and she was born on US soil, and Wong Kim Ark parents were subjects of China who were never naturalized as US citizens.
Elg = natural born citizen Wong Ark = citizen by birth because of interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Show me where SCOTUS says Kawakita is *not* natural-born. If you got that, you have something. If they are silent on it, you got nothing.
Show me where in the SCOTUS opinion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that said Ark was a natural born CITIZEN? Nope, not there there...
In your mind.
For the purpose of presidential eligibility, there are only two categories: natural born
and naturalized
. Natural born
means you qualified as a US citizen just because you were born. Naturalized
means you went and applied and got accepted.
Jindahl, Rubio, and McCain are natural born citizens eligible to be president. Schwarzenegger is naturalized, and therefore is not eligible.
Because John Jay recommended it. The Presidency is the most powerful position and he also holds the title of CIC.
There should be no questioning of his loyalties. Read the post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619619/posts#9
Do you care what obama says? I don’t. Since Obama *IS* President, whatever he did on his website didn’t hurt him that much, did it?
“A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).”
Please back up this claim with a cite of US law or court ruling. There is no basis for this claim.
Your ‘natural-born’ and other definitions are simply made up and have no relation to actual US citizenship law.
Yes, you like to post trivial crap but won’t respond to actual references to natural law by distinguished Englishmen & the US Congress & census records. You are all the same...you can handle debating the truth. You always cut & run because you can not come back with equally substantial proof to refute it.
FYI...WKA has no bearing on natural born either as the court never declared WKA to be natural born. PERIOD
I guess you missed that key phrase ... “AS AN ELEMENT OF COMMON LAW”.
Judges may ONLY rule on the basis of statutes or common law. Nothing else. If they incorporate any ‘law of nations’ that is not in statute or treaty it is ONLY VIA COMMON LAW.
I recall the governor of a neighboring state boring the Democrat Convention to tears in 1988 with an interminable, boring speech. Four years later, he was President.
“You do see this statement above?
‘He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,’
You can’t get much clearer than this.”
I take it you understand this to be significant, but it means nothing more to me than saying someone who was born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents “is thus a citizen of the United States by birth.” What do you think it says? That he’s ONLY a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, and thus not a natural born citizen? It doesn’t say that.
“All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.”
At long last, according to what?!?!
“And we see in Kawikita’s case, he was ONLY a native born citizen”
Nothing you quoted demonstrates such a claim. The best you can say is that they didn’t use the term natural born. Which in itself is evidence of nothing. You’d think with all these cases shooting down mere native born citizens, a single on of them would tell us that not all antive borns are natural borns. But no, the best we get (from your perspective) is silence on the matter.
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.