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.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
Yes, that is true, BUT what you leave out is that "jurisdiction" is not only "territorial jurisdiction" but it encompasses allegiance owing jurisdiction where the foreign citizen who owes allegiance to a foreign sovereign. A foreign citizen can pass on their foreign sovereign to their child born on a foreign land, therefore, the child is NOT a natural born citizen.
Which comes back around to the 1790 Naturalization Act where Congress made the mistake of "considering" foreign born of American Citizens NBC. They realized very fast that you can't do that, and in the next Naturalization Act of 1795, the erroneous NBC clause disappeared.
As an example that you may even understand... the King of England deemed everyone born in his empire "natural born subjects," but most still could not hold high office or did the commoners, the naturalized people, not to forget the denizens, would not be in line for the crown;
If England can claim foreigners who gave birth to children and claim the children as their natural born subjects, how can a birth overseas in England or any other country be considered a natural born US citizens? You can't. BUT according to what you say that a jus soli birth is the sole criteria to be a natural born citizen, YOU would take that same NBC claim away from people born in foreign countries and only give that natural right to the United States. The kid is either a natural born in one country OR the other country - the child cannot be an NBC of both. A silly logic error that you after-birther don't see or you just lie about it.
What argument, or have you just been sleeping the way back???
And moreover, to clarify this statement above from my post 623, the kid having two different sovereigns who can make a claim on the child as a citizen cannot be a natural born citizen of either.
No it was the newbie doctorman's "productivity," LOL!!!
I was, and got flamed for it as an "Obot" by the hardcore "COLB" crowd who had been led by a notorious, pied piper troll into believing that a piece of paper was the be-all and end-all of Obama's eligibility, when he'd come right out and said he was a citizen of another nation at birth.
There was even faux-fancy "analyses" of pixels, comparisons of fonts, borders ... the whole nine yards, every bit of it BS remarkably similar to Rathergate, by design I thought and posted so at the time, designed to suck in, fool, preoccupy and demoralize the vaunted FReeper research machine. Told them then they'd find out too late just how they'd been played.
Didn't matter, they kept on with it and some still do to this day. I was dismayed at first, then amazed and am now just resigned to it. I've ignored those threads for well over a year now, there's no reasoning with such a fixation.
And here we are.
“No Court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a “Citizen of the United States at birth” and a “Natural Born Citizen.”
I arrived late to this discussion, so apologies if my question was answered previously.....
Before 2008, was any court EXPLICITLY asked to rule on that distinction?
“Of course that CRS report is full of Bull and more
Natural means, starting what is listed as number 1,
“1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. ....”
Natural doesn’t mean artificial.
The point is Obot, that laws passed by man to make people into citizens is an artificial act - unlike natural. The 14th Amendment is an “artificial act” because it made men into citizens and cannot or could not make anyone into natural born citizens. Only idiots don’t see this point, but we see we have tons of idiots here.”
Until that argument is actually adjudicated by a trier of fact, I’ll continue to agree with US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong on at least two counts. Justice Waite gave us a definition of natural born citizenship in direct fulfillment of the Art. II Sec. I requirements. Read, learn, comprehend and retain:
"This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ..." Followed only a sentence or two later, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
The definition is used immediately after its reference to the presidential eligibility requirements.
Waite also acknowledges that the rights of citizenship apply to both men and women (which would mean a woman could theoretically be president).
"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
"Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."
“Minor v Happersett” has not been deemed to be “stare decisis” in any of the 85 Obama eligibility lawsuits or appeals that have already been adjudicated.
The Hoosier Hillbillies cited Minor v. Happersett, but misinterpreted the decision as leaving open a question as to "whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." In its footnote it claims, ... "the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, ..." which is wrong. Minor says anyone born in the country to anything other than citizen parents (plural) is considered an alien or foreigner. Of course, the Indiana Appeals Court did not hear oral arguments, so they did not allow their misinterpretations to be challenged. We also know how they acknowledged in their footnotes that the SCOTUS did not declare WKA to be a natural born citizen. IOW, their interpretations are NOT supported by stare decisis. Of the other 84 decisions, have not seen where they have cited the Minor decision for the definition of natural born citizen. Most cite Vattel, which was what Ankeny did, only to be dismissed with an extremely puzzling response. "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century." The so-called 18th century treatise is Vattel's "Law of Nations" and the quotations of Member fo Congress made during the nineteenth century are from the authors of the 14th amendment showing original intent. Hard to respect a court that brushes off such things of which the SCOTUS has never had a problem using.
No Court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a “Citizen of the United States at birth” and a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Sorry, but the Wong Kim Ark decision does note the distinction. One definition IT says is in the Constitution and the other is outside of the Constitution. NBC, it says, is dependent on the parents being citizens.
arrived late to this discussion, so apologies if my question was answered previously.....
Before 2008, was any court EXPLICITLY asked to rule on that distinction?
If the Supreme Court follows the intent and meaning of the natural born citizen clause as Jay and Madison understood it, and it isn't the King subject nonsense, they will come to the correct conclusion that Obama illegitimately sits in the White House.
You - Until that argument is actually adjudicated by a trier of fact, I’ll continue to agree with US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
"imprimatur"? Why be "imprimatur" when you can play ball-less hide and seek by taking an evasive position.
Other musses from the dis-honorable Clay Land:
" She [Taitz] therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce "satisfactory" proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel makes these allegations although a "short-form" birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
So Jameseeee, did Clay Land see the "proof" in his court that he was at least born in the United States? Or is the clownish judge "believing" that silly Oboma COLB .jpg image on the Internet as genuine? Sure a stupid image is publicly available. How about that COLB image get authenticated against the records in Hawaii to be presented in his court? Land just BS'd everyone here.
Furthermore from "Judge" Land,
"It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve."
"Appear"? LOL. Apparently not Jameseeee. Congress did not vet Obama for presidential eligibility, The liberal mouth piece for Congress CRS report admitted that Obama was not vetted by Congress. Congress ignored Obama's lack of presidential eligibility status.
That dingbat Land even cited Obama's beard Neil Abercrombie, the Commie, 50th Hawaiian Resolution that Obama was born in Hawaii. What an ass.
Clay Land - See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). "
So Jameseeee, of course Congress would vote "yes" for such a meaningless resolution. The silly thing was only a vehicle to state Obama was born in Hawaii. Congress also voted yes for Don Ho and the Diamond-head volcano. Now if it was really true that Obama was born in Hawaii, Obama would have proven in Clay Land's court, or one of the many court cases by providing real and genuine evidence. Land wouldn't have to concoct and fed the world BS with AberCommie's Resolution nonsense.
“That depends on what you mean by “EXPLICITLY.”
I understand that no court has found a distinction between “Natural Born Citizens” and “persons physically born in the USA.”
What I want know is if any court has explicitly ruled that these two things are identical?
To: VADoc1980
Reposted especially for RINO/CINO trolls like you:
DON’T TREAD ON ME!!
Troll sighting!!
ZOT!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2627138/posts?page=130#130
“Jindhal is a natural-born citizen of the USA.”
Not if his parents weren’t citizens at his birth.
“No, but being born a citizen is.”
No, it is not. And, you know it is not.
“There is no such thing as a born citizen who is not a “natural born citizen.””
They’re called anchor babies. You can’t be that ignorant of what a Natural Born Citizen is. Tell me you can’t.
“Whether or not that’s true, after the 14th amendment it’s moot point.”
Natural Born Citizens do not become so by statute.
Did you argue that a NBC requires two citizen parents back when Obama gained his party's nomination? If not, why were you silent?
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.