Posted on 04/29/2011 3:15:09 PM PDT by llandres
No wonder so many people are confused, or ignorant, about this subject and its Constitutional importance relative to Presidential eligibility. This first link - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PlaceR - is a 9 min. interview with Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, by the day's cspan moderator. Listen to the questions and his answers. Sheesh.
Here's another link to the Washington Journal segment that followed, with call-ins and emails, titled, "Should U.S. presidents be 'natural born' citizens?"
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/OpenPhones7290
Should? Should??? Folks, this is what we're up against - ignorance, misinformation, apathy or a combination thereof.
Good job! Mr Rogers gets pwned!!!
“Did you notice that Lynch v. Clarke which you quote goes on for pages and pages and pages past that? Your quote is from p. 246.”
Why, yes - as I’ve pointed out to others elsewhere, it runs nearly 30 pages. That is why I gave the page numbers of my selections, which I chose because they were very explicit.
Dual allegiance:
“We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government.”
Correct. We acknowledge that. He admits fully that Julia Lynch is a full citizen of England. She had lived there since just a few months old - yet he also found she met the qualifications for a natural born citizen.
The Founders didn’t say someone had to live in America to be a NBC. Suppose my parents, after giving birth to me in the USA, and moved to Spain and raised me there, and at 18 I elected to return to the USA. Could I have run for President? Could Elg, in Perkins v Elg have done so?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
What about Steinkauler, mentioned in P v E:
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
“Hmmm, there’s that dual-allegiance idea, right in your own pet case. Which is by definition relevant to the Presidency.”
Really? What part of the Constitution addresses dual allegiance? How is it defined?
Do you think the Rev Wright, or Bill Ayers feels allegiance to the USA? The term NBC does not address dual allegiance. IN fact, why don’t you describe how Obama has shown any sign of allegiance to the UK...
“The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...”
Yes, and he based his decision on Julia Lynch meeting the criteria for a NBC. There were a number of cases involving property rights heard in the states in the early 1800s, and they all fell the same way as Lynch.
“Recall that Barack’s dad was an illegal alien...”
No, he entered on a valid visa and at the time of Obama’s birth was undoubtedly here legally.
“But wait...there’s MORE:”
Yes. The judge even addresses Vattel on page 256. He reviews a number of possible arguments against his decision, and deals with them.
The Constitution used the term NBC. There is no doubt but that NBC came from natural born subject, with the only change being in wording to reflect the fact that we have no king. It had an established legal meaning. If the Founders and the states didn’t want that meaning, they should have chosen different words.
No law or provision of the Constitution can prevent the American public from electing someone who hates America. Rev Wright is undoubtedly constitutionally qualified, yet he hates America with a passion. John Kerry ran for President, and there is no reasonable doubt but that he hates America - yet he was also a NBC.
At some point, the Founders had to trust the people not to elect someone who hates America. Obama’s election was a failure of the American people, not the Constitution.
Sorry, Mr. Ed was the only horse stock photo I could find from that particular angle.
LOL
I appreciate your passion concerning this issue and about defending/protecting the constitution and its underlying principles!
As a matter of fact, I share your views pretty much, even though you apparently read things into my post that simply weren’t there. For example, I challenge you to find the words in my post that says that we should do nothing and simply sit around and wait for someone, somewhere to do something.
My only point was, and is, that this matter of the constitution requiring two citizen parents is in dispute and I simply predicted the obvious... that the courts will ultimately become involved to settle the dispute.
In the meantime, yes, there are things we should do, including efforts to educate as many of our fellow citizens as we can (including our elected representatives) on this and other important constitutional issues of our day. You have no argument with me on that.
Please allow me to apologize for any unintended consequences of my post.
I wasn’t unloading on you. I was simply using your post as a springboard for a general polemic on what I see as public apathy to the fate of our Constitution.
I am sorry if I gave offense or I failed to make it clear that I wasn’t getting personal. I wouldn’t want to get crosswise with a brother in arms, so to speak.
Well it’s an interesting thing you should ask that. Because my country of birth is not my country of citizenship. I am a citizen of my country by descent. As a direct result, my children are not eligible for citizenship to my country, because the right to citizenship by descent only extends one generation and that was me. US citizens is what my children are, and it is all they can be. So tell me again why it is they can’t grow up to be president?
Allegiance in the sense of legal obligation appears to have been the overarching concern, and seeing as how no amendment has altered the original intent of the clause, it remains the concern. So, if you want to find out if your children will be able to be President some day, I suggest you take the issue of a foreign citizen parent up in a court with the proper jurisdiction.
That jurisdiction thing can be a real stickler, you know what I mean?
But you left out the quotes which I supplied, where the issues of dual allegiance -- which are germane in the Obama situation, but not to a property-rights discussion.
For that reason, the arguments in Lynch are flawed.
One who was not only subject to deportation, but was apparently committing bigamy by marrying Obama's mother.
The Founders didn’t say someone had to live in America to be a NBC. Suppose my parents, after giving birth to me in the USA, and moved to Spain and raised me there, and at 18 I elected to return to the USA. Could I have run for President? Could Elg, in Perkins v Elg have done so?
Red herring.
We're talking about Obama.
Everyone agrees that the President MUST NOT have dual loyalties: and Obama is literally a TEXTBOOK example of the case of an American mother and wayfaring, itinerant, foreign father.
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.
Irrelevant. According to your quote, Steinkauler was born of a US father. Obama wasn't.
The Constitution used the term NBC. There is no doubt but that NBC came from natural born subject, with the only change being in wording to reflect the fact that we have no king. It had an established legal meaning. If the Founders and the states didn’t want that meaning, they should have chosen different words.
That's another red herring, as has been shown repeatedly. Even within Lynch v. Clarke.
Otherwise, the decision wouldn't have quoted Vattel and others ABOUT "dual allegiances".
The only reason he didn't make more of it back then, is nobody thought there would be traitorous or usurping vermin like Ayers and Soros to put up a non-NBC as President; still less that the press and other organs -- hell, even a major party (party ~ "factions" which the Founding Fathers warned against) which would usurp the safeguards of the entire Republic for short-term political/personal gain.
No law or provision of the Constitution can prevent the American public from electing someone who hates America. Rev Wright is undoubtedly constitutionally qualified, yet he hates America with a passion. John Kerry ran for President, and there is no reasonable doubt but that he hates America - yet he was also a NBC.
No, this is another lie. Obaama was never constitutionally eligible in the FIRST place, because his father is a foreigner who was just here temporarily, and committed bigamy. His hatred of America justifies the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
As for J F'ing K, he should have been summarily shot in the 70's, along with Jane Fonda.
Cheers!
lso, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
But in your later reply to me you wrote:
Why, yes - as I’ve pointed out to others elsewhere, it runs nearly 30 pages. That is why I gave the page numbers of my selections, which I chose because they were very explicit.
So, like a typical troll, you're trying to have it both ways.
You were lying through your foul TEETH about "...and concludes" -- since the quote which you said "concludes" is in page 246, but I posted arguments 11 pages LATER which refuted your supposed "conclusion".
When I pointed that out, you tried to paint me as the liar, by ostentatiously declaiming "it runs nearly 30 pages".
The issue isn't the total number of pages: it is that you lied by taking your out-of-context quote from near the middle and knowingly, damnably, falsely insinuating that it was the culmination of the article.
Typical of a leftist troll.
Looking forward to when JR allows the vermin on the BC threads to be banned: ("Enemies foreign and domestic" and all that.)
Cheers!
“As for practice, your arguments do *nothing* to explain why *both* Chester Arthur and Barack Obama took pains to hide their formal legal status as children of non-US-citizen parents.”
That’s just nuts. Barack Obama wouldn’t shut up about his Kenyan father. He wrote a freekin’ book about it. His first major speech to a national audience was his 2004 Keynote at the Democratic National Convention. After the thank-yous, the speech began, “Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya.”
Everyone but cave-dwellers knew Obama’s father was a foreigner. And the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in as our 44’th President (twice!).
It’s clear that the meaning and implications of “Natural Born Citizen” are debatable, even here on FR.
“You were lying through your foul TEETH about “...and concludes” — since the quote which you said “concludes” is in page 246, but I posted arguments 11 pages LATER which refuted your supposed “conclusion”.”
Sorry you don’t know how to read. Having set forth his argument, he then considers a number of objections to it, including Vattel and others. His essential conclusion that leads to Lynch being a citizen is on page 250:
“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
Once that is held, the final decision that she is a citizen and entitled to inherit (next to last page) is inevitable. The later discussion of possible objections does NOT refute the statement on page 250, since that is the basis for the decision.
“You were lying through your foul TEETH...”
No, I’m honest. ANYONE with two or more brain cells who reads Lynch understands that the judge decided she met the qualifications of a NBC. You can toss insults, but you cannot win a case in court because you can’t be bothered to learn what the courts have said for 200+ years.
“Enemies foreign and domestic”
You are the one arguing we should follow a Swiss philosopher instead of what was written in the Constitution. You are the one who wants to reject 200+ years of legal precedence to make up a new rule that the Founders never, ever followed. It takes a twisted person to believe the Founders, writing in 1787, were following the words of a translation made in 1797.
But if anyone doubts me, let them show a single case in US history where paternity overrides birth in the US, excepting those cases mentioned IAW natural born subjects in English common law. What person, because his father is a German citizen, is considered a German citizen and not a US citizen if he was born in the USA - per Vattel?
” That’s another red herring, as has been shown repeatedly. Even within Lynch v. Clarke. / Otherwise, the decision wouldn’t have quoted Vattel and others ABOUT “dual allegiances”.”
No. Having set forth his reasoning, he then defends it against various objections, including Vattel. Pages 250-254 gives his basic conclusion, and the various references supporting that conclusion.
Page 255 starts with:
“7. Before parting with the subject, I will examine further the grounds on which the citizenship of Julia Lynch was denied.”
Pages 255-259 deal with these objections. Please try to read before you accuse others of lying. But then, if birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers...
This is fascinating stuff... really it is. I’m new here and I wanted to first tell you all that I appreciate the discussion here because it is pertinent to my situation in life generally. The legal background you are giving me here is extraordinary. It’s the first time I’ve seen or heard of much of it. So first off, thank you.
Let me tell you about my circumstances. As I alluded to in previous posts, I am English... in proper terminology, I am a UK citizen (technically the phrase British citizen is wrong). I was born in Singapore in 1964. Singapore had formerly been a British colony but attained independence in 1959, five years before I was born. I took UK citizenship when I was 10 years old, surrendering my jus soli Singapore citizenship at that point.
I moved to the USA when I was 23, in 1988. I married an American woman. We have, as I’d also pointed out in prior posts, two children aged 20 and 17. I’ve lived here 23 years.
I have two issues...
1) I recently discovered that my children, under British Nationality Law, are not entitled to UK citizenship. If I had been born in the UK, they would, but because I was born outside the UK, they are not. Citizenship by descent extends only one generation, and I used that up. So despite the fact that my father fought for his country in the war and was awarded the MBE for his service, his grandchildren, my children, are being ejected. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. I am infuriated by this.
(I should also add that in the reverse case, if I’d been American and gone to the UK, had children with an English wife, my children would be eligible for US citizenship as long as I had lived in the US for at least five years prior to them being born, and their right to citizenship would exist regardless of where I was born.)
2) I love the United States. It’s been very good to me. My wife is American, and my children are too. But I have never taken US citizenship for one reason only, that being that doing so involves raising my right hand and swearing the Naturalization oath that requires me to “renounce and abjure all prior allegiance” to my country. I can’t do that. And many of you American folks would have precisely the same heartburn if you were faced with the same thing in reverse. Friends tell me to cross my fingers and say it. But I can’t do that even.
So I am stunned and fascinated by the legal history of the concept of double allegiance. I’ve always wondered... why can’t you have allegiance to two things at once? Given the history of the United States, why does this oath even exist, especially when, back in the day, EVERYONE was English and supposedly irreversibly British subjects. So what happens if I take the oath? If the legal precedent in Lynch is right...
“We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government.”
What is stronger, the power of my naturalization oath, or the bonds that tie me in allegiance to my “former” country? Irresistible force and immovable object.
The two issues are related in that, if my former country is going to disown my children that quickly and that easily, that’s going to make it that much easier for me to disown them. Bring on the judge! I’m ready.
Also it’s relevant to the discussion here because there are analogies between my situation and the IMHO rather spurious claims that Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he’s basically a British subject. Although I have to laugh because strictly speaking it’s true. The thought that Obama has more claim to British subjectdom than my children is just weird to me.
Any and all comments and guidance is appreciated... I’ll tell you now, I’m not going to agree politically with many of you, in fact, I might just take this opportunity to say, concerning thecodont’s post earlier that anyone who goes around saying Hussein this, Hussein that and then follows it up with “(HINT: It’s NOT about skin color or race!)” clearly doesn’t know how much of a dumbass they’re making themselves out to be.
Sorry for the length of this post. And thanks again.
You missed the key word I wrote: “legally.” From the legal perspective, Obama’s legal father was/is as good as hidden in plain sight since there is no legal leverage to get legal confirmation. Without legal confirmation, his father’s citizenship is of no legal value to anyone in the court system, and Obama relies on the reliably socialist mainstream media to protect him from everything else.
If you don't understand why we would mock someone who we feel is destroying the very founding principles of this country and have to attribute some hidden bigoted motivations to that mocking then you're too wrapped up in your own egoistic view of things to think straight.
That being the case I will skip responding to your other points other than to say that it is egoism to think that there is any personal affront to you that your children would not be eligible to be a president. There are many possible circumstances a person can be born under and it is neither possible nor desirable to accommodate every one of them in order to make each one feel good about themselves.
The natural born citizen requirement was put in the Constitution to protect the whole nation not to give ego strokes to every individual citizen.
i’ve got no problem with mocking if that’s what you want to do, only with disingenuousness and hypocrisy.
tbh, i don’t feel any affront if it came about that my children can’t be president, although my personal opinion is that they can. i feel affronted by my country that they can’t be citizens. i was only asking if they could be president to explore the probably fairly unusual case where one or more parents is not american, but the child is a citizen and can be nothing else. surely the test is what the child is, not what their parents are, or the grandparents, or great-grandparents etc.
Apparently you have the mind-reading skills to determine which insults are disingenuous and hypocritical and which aren't.
surely the test is what the child is, not what their parents are, or the grandparents, or great-grandparents etc.
When it comes to qualifications for the highest office of the land it's not, it wasn't intended to be and definitely should not be. Since the natural born citizen requirement only concerns the status of the parents it is rather disingenuous to bring grandparents and great-grandparents into it.
Just letting you know - Brrrski, Roger’s special friend, got escorted from the building apparently on this thread, didn’t see a “zot” word but all of a sudden - poof! The purple screen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2713770/posts?page=96#96
What a shame. He seemed like such an honest dealer. /s LOL
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.