Posted on 04/13/2011 9:17:46 AM PDT by Windflier
Just heard WBAP morning host, Mark Davis, say that only one US citizen parent is required for a person to be a Natural Born Citizen.
That is just blatant misinformation, and Mark needs to be called on it.
He went on to give the rest of his weird definition, but I was already so angry, I couldn't hear him. I went looking for a link to send him email, so that I could correct him.
Here's a link to his show, if any of you feel the urge to do so: http://www.wbap.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1397
Man, that is ironic.
We have really got to remember that there is a LARGE difference between a (US) Citizen, and a Natural Born (US) Citizen.
If only one of your parents is a US citizen, and you’re born in a foreign country, that parent can still transmit simple US citizenship to you.
However, you would NOT be a Natural Born Citizen of the US. That requires two US citizen parents, and birth on US soil.
BINGO!
All true, but there is NO doubt as to how the Framers defined a Natural Born Citizen, which is, a person born to two US citizen parents on US soil.
I haven't seen this if it's out there. Easy, I could have missed it.
In your scenario, the child certainly is a citizen upon birth, by operation of law, but that could be different from being born a citizen without need for a citizenship grant by operation of law.
So the question here would be whether a child's natural citizenship (i.e., the citizenship he receives from his parent(s) without operation of any law or grant of a Sovereign) can be conveyed by the mother alone, and then whether the citizenship of the foreign father has any impact on the child's natural (born with) citizenship.
The idea of citizenship that one was naturally born with came from the idea that no man could be born stateless. He "naturally" received the citizenship of his father; no Sovereign had to grant that to him.
Right you are, bud. Your comments are a valuable and necessary part of this national discussion.
That said, every available shred of evidence to date, points to the contention that the Framers considered a Natural Born Citizen to be one who is born of US parents on US soil.
“Isn’t he the guy who co-hosted for Rush a few months back and had everyone turning off the radio in anger and disgust?”
Mark Davis is a self-important, bloviating idiot who never lets facts get in the way of his opinion.
Rush says he never listens to other hosts, which is obvious, or Mark Davis would never again befoul the EIB Network.
If the U.S. passed a law that said only children born in the U.S. of American citizens were deemed U.S. citizens at birth, what citizenship would the child of two Mexicans have, even if that child was born in Texas?
That child would be a citizen of Mexico. Because that was the citizensip he was naturally born with.
“When he subs for Rush I immediately turn the channel. he is horrible.”
Ditto
If Obama was born on US soil to Stanley Ann, and if Obama Sr. was indeed his birth father, he's a US Citizen.
He is NOT, however, a Natural Born (US) Citizen, per the Framers' understanding of that term. He would need to have been born to two US citizen parents on US soil to meet the definition.
That's the address posted on his page at http://www.wbap.com. Looking at the other people listed at that site, the pattern seems to be the first initial, last name and wbap.com.
Therefore, I would surmise that mdavis@wbap.com might be a valid e-mail address.
They might have been ignorant three years ago and they might have gotten a pass THEN but NOT now.
The fear of the 0h0m0llah regime is evident, especially in case of Mark Levin who's a great CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer and called "The Great One!"
The soft dictatorship we're living in is getting harsher and more intimidating by the day. The Conservative media is the first to stare at the muzzle.
Mark Levin has become the new buzz word/favorite conservative of the ‘Obama’s BC is A-Okay now back off the subject it’s only hurting conservatives’ crowd.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2703636/posts?q=1&;page=101#101
at least it’s one (parental) step closer than what the left has been claiming, which seems to be that only his (alleged) birth in HI is what qualifies him as NBC.
Lets think about this...
XYZ dictator visits the UN for some “peace talks” and while staying at the Ritz-Carlton impregnates a US citizen.
So, thirty five years later their son/daughter could run for POTUS as long as he/she was born on US soil?
Not without the force of man made law or edict to declare him so.
Wouldn't one think that "natural born citizenship" is the citizenship one is BORN with, that requires no law to make it go into effect?
That is in alignment with the reasoning of Vattel, who in my mind, simply voiced his observation of a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Our courts may rule one way or another about what the term Natural Born Citizen means, but no matter what they conclude, it won't change the actual phenomenon, itself.
A person who is born in a country to two citizen parents, is naturally bequeathed the complete character and inheritance of that nation. His character requires no further defining, nor does it require the force of law to make it so.
Any relation to Frank Marshall Davis?
But the constitution still has the same requirements.
The law of the land.
Thanks. I was able to send a message using the e-mail link provided at the link, which I wouldn’t have expected to have been provided so conveniently.
Mark Davis is now much better informed than he previously was.
I don’t need the scotus at all.
The most ideal parents would of course be from the same nation and would therefore have no ties to a foriegn government. Common sense.
The founders were a lot wiser than we.
Diversity not reqired for parents of the prez.
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.