Posted on 08/11/2013 2:54:35 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Potential 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump spoke to ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday morning and reignited the birther issue that he helped spark back in 2011, questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and wondering whether Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible to president. "Was there a birth certificate?" Trump asked. "You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't know, either, Jonathan. You're a smart guy, you don't know, either." "I'm pretty convinced he was born in the United States," Karl said. "Ah! Pretty convinced," Trump said, and rolled over Karl's objections that he was 100% sure Obama was an American citizen. "Pretty sure is not acceptable." Trump made Obama's birth certificate a major issue in his aborted 2012 run for the GOP nomination, ultimately leading to Obama releasing his longform birth certificate. Karl asked Trump if the Canadian-born Cruz was eligible for the office. (Cruz's mother is an American citizen.) "If he was born in Canada, then perhaps not," Trump said. "That will be ironed out. I don't know the circumstances. If he says he was born in Canada, that's his thing."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
CpnHook, I am guessing you are some sort of stealth obot, perhaps just a zealot, but more likely an agent paid to spread your anti-American, anti-Constitution propaganda. You are too faux erudite to be a fogblower, so my best guess would be that you are a reincarnation of Dr. Conspiracy or another neo-marxist of similar ilk. The bottom line is that you can drop the pretense because you are not fooling anyone.
By the way, the founders did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, often down to the appropriateness of individual words. “Natural born Citizen” versus “born Citizen” was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen.”
To be merely born a citizen was not considered enough of barrier against a possible presidential aspirant with a strong foreign allegiance. For example, an anchor baby may be born here, but raised in a foreign land by parents neither of whom have taken an oath of sole (or any) allegiance to our Constitution. It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many of your anti-American leftist brethren would have us believe just that.
There is no point in debating such enemies of the integrity of our nation, for their goal is to destroy our God-given freedom by any and every effective means. People such as you, Dr. Conspiracy (or whoever you really are), are simply to be opposed and defeated. Debate is pointless except where and when it serves to enlighten the understanding of muddle-headed low information type fellow citizens, who nevertheless are generally loyal to America and its values.
In spite of your equivocating bluster, my prior argument stands strong on its merits. The logic is simple and unassailable by the likes of you. To that I am happy to let the reader be the judge.
Beginning with the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment based ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 and being reaffirmed in 1898 in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the courts have consistently ruled that there are only two forms of U.S. citizenship: born citizenship (synonymous with natural born citizenship) and naturalized citizenship (cannot be a president or vice-president).
From the Supreme Court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins: “This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
There have been sixteen court rulings finding that Obama qualified as a natural born citizen. Here are excerpts from three of those 15 court rulings:
Tisdale v. Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
I would assume that if Senator Cruz decides to run, there will be many court rulings on whether his birth in Canada to a mother born in Delaware and a Cuban national father qualifies him as a Citizen of the United States at birth/natural born citizen.
Since 2008, 207 civil suits and ballot challenges have been filed concerning Bararck Obama’s eligibility.
For it was two foreign born Monarchs in George 1st and George 2nd who ruled England in the 18th century. They were both Germans. The son of George 2nd was, of course George 3rd. (1738-1820). He was born in England. Only conjecture on my part, but such men caused strife and atrocities. They were however often the norm at the time for many powerful rulers.
I believe the Founding Fathers ruled that a person eligible should be born in the United States of American parents, who were citizens. Woodrow Wilson was queried because his mother was Scottish. It was found that according to United States laws, she then was given American citizenship on her marriage to Wilson Sr.
Excuse this ramble.
Consider natural born being a Kind. It could be the missing link.. The kindly fruits of the earth. The natural fruits of the earth.
If I were truly stealth then you wouldn't see me at all. At least that's how I understand stealth technology to work.
. . . perhaps just a zealot, but more likely an agent paid to spread your anti-American, anti-Constitution propaganda.
So my pointing out that "natural born citizen" bears a striking linguistic similarity to "natural born subject," that those terms were used at times interchangeably in the pre-Constitution period, and that Alexander Hamilton indicated that Constitutional terms find their origin in predecessor English law (the Hamilton reference was a point I've made on this Board earlier, though not immediately to you) -- that these things are "anti-American, anti-Constitution propaganda?"
Wow. Such drama.
How about instead we say that these are just indisputable points of history?
History, rather than histrionics. You have the two terms confused.
By the way, the founders did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, often down to the appropriateness of individual words. “Natural born Citizen” versus “born Citizen” was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen.”
And your evidence of this "debate" of this "specific rejection" with the contemporaneous explanation that "natural born citizen" creates a "stronger inborn loyalty" is what exactly? I assert here you're just making this up.
Unlike with issues such as federalism, the powers of the respective government branches, slavery, etc., for which there is a record of extensive debate, the proposal and passage of "natural born citizen" comes to us near devoid of historical record. The few scant bits are found in external correspondence with no record of debate within the Convention chambers. And there is no record of anyone explaining some supposed difference between "born citizen" and "natural born citizen."
It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many of your anti-American leftist brethren would have us believe just that.
Under the Constitution, a person could be born in the U.S. (to citizen parents), leave at age 14 for foreign lands for the next 21 years or more, and then return and be eligible to run for President of the U.S. Yes, it's true! That person --- who has spent the formative years of education, maturity into adulthood, and awareness of political values steeped in all manner of foreign influences -- would be, in the Framers' eyes, eligible for the Presidency despite all that pernicious foreign influence.
Yet supposedly (in your view) a person born here to parents who were (at the time) not yet naturalized, but who has lived in the U.S. for far more years than the person described in the prior paragraph and who has had a 100 percent U.S.-based education would be for the Framers an unthinkable possibility for the Presidency.
You confuse "eligibility" with "electability." Both persons described are eligible (so, too, arguably, is your foreign-raised "anchor baby" example). But the Framers in their wisdom left whether any of these persons should be elected to We the People.
There is no point in debating such enemies of the integrity of our nation, for their goal is to destroy our God-given freedom by any and every effective means. People such as you, Dr. Conspiracy (or whoever you really are), are simply to be opposed and defeated. Debate is pointless except where and when it serves to enlighten the understanding of muddle-headed low information type fellow citizens, who nevertheless are generally loyal to America and its values.
You get points for a nice rhetorical flourish. Your arguments are, however, easily dismantled. It's indeed a good time to exit the debate.
In spite of your equivocating bluster . .
Oh, there's no equivocating on my end. A central point is clear and unequivocal:
It defies logic to suppose a) that the Framers used the term "natural born citizen" to convey a previously-unused notion of "requiring two citizen parents," b) that they did so contrary to the previously accepted, interchangeable use of "natural born" by reference to "subject" and "citizen," and c) that they ascribed this "new" meaning to the English "natural born" while making absolutely no mention in the Constitutional debates or contemporaneous correspondence that is what they were doing.
Your supposed point that "born citizen" was changed to "natural born citizen" doesn't get you where you claim to be going, since "natural born" in the existing usage of up till that time hadn't ever held the meaning "of like parents." Of course, rather than address my point you retreat behind the camouflage of bluster and flag-waving.
To that I am happy to let the reader be the judge.
Or, even better, this being a point of Constitutional law, let judges be the judge. They have all so far taken the view I espouse.
If you believe all/any judges and their decisions are infallible as to other’s opinions and not subject to review, personal coloring, political influence, misinterpretation of law or by ignorance and expediency we certainly have a different view. There can be no coloring of the written and historical words in Articles I and II and Amendment XIV of the Constitution. I form my reasoning based on years of dealing with the legal professionals.
I do not believe that judges are infallible. That’s why we have various levels of appeals courts with panels of justices ruling at the appellate levels.
However the rulings of original jurisdiction judges stand unless and until they are overturned.
I also believe that since the major party opposing candidates (McCain, Palin, Romney or Ryan) and the major opposition political parties did not contest the eligibility of any candidate nor the outcome of the election on Article II or 14th Amendment grounds, there is no judge anywhere in America who would attempt to overturn the electoral will of a majority of the electorate and the Electoral College.
You're right.
If the Court were to ever take up the issue, it might be considered precedent. But, it could so be overruled, due to additional evidence that contradicts it.
So could any Supreme Court decision.
I'm really not sure what Miller has to do with anything. My point was very simple: you wrote
There are several sources from that time that the Supreme Court considers authoritative....From that era, natural born means born in the US to two citizen parents.and I just wanted to point out that the time the Supreme Court went through those sources extensively, they didn't find the meaning you said was there.
Don't be stupid. All I said was that, contrary to your claim, Vattel couldn't have coined the term "natural born citizen" because (1) he wrote in French and (2) he didn't use the French words for "born" or "citizen." You can translate "les naturels" however you like, but your original claim is still simply false.
LOL...........the last sentence kind of sums it up.....no matter what the Frogs called it.
On second thought, maybe you can't help being stupid. Vattel wasn't French, he was Swiss.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that US v. Miller is a good example of Supreme Court jurisprudence gone awry. It led to decades of bad law until DC v. Heller actually ruled on the whether there was an individual right to possess a firearm.
Until the Supreme Court decides the definition of natural born citizen FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, they haven’t ruled on this issue.
Sorry, but it is disingenuous to claim that since none of the major candidates challenged Obama’s eligibility, that no judge would overturn an election. Candidates in 2008 primary elections did challenge Obama’s eligibility, but legal action was delayed until no court remedy was available.
No judge can remove a President from office. Once elected, Obama would have to be impeached. But, challenges were also made for ballot eligibility in the 2012 election. They were amateur attempts, by people with nothing to lose.
And therein lies the reason this issue has been not been given a proper hearing, without relying on unrelated precedents. Anyone questioning Obama’s eligibility has been ridiculed as a racist. This has been standard tactics by his supporters: shout down challengers before anyone starts to listen.
50 years ago, those same people would been ready to make the same challenge if Barry Goldwater had not been so far behind in the polls. And their Democrats were preparing to do so. Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state, leaving room for doubt.
If you are so sure you are right, then would you object to a full hearing by the Supreme Court? Forget all the previous precedents, and let both sides present the evidence, and focus on what the authors of the Constitution meant when they wrote: natural-born citizen.
You and I can’t make this happen. But, it’s the only way to settle the issue.
The Founfers were the naturals.
Founders
Alexander Porter Morse wrote the French ‘naturel’ meant natural born in his Treatise on Citizenship:
“The natural born or native is one who is born in the country to citizen parents.”
Morse references a French edition of Droit des Gens.
Justice Story's status as a primary early authority is not a point I dispute. I'm glad you recognize his stature. So let's examine Story's views on the point at issue.
The following is the portion of Shanks v. Dupont I've seen held up in alleged support of a "citizen parent" basis for "natural born citizen."
If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her, by election, a citizen of South Carolina while she remained in that state. If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.
Miss Scott was born before 1776 to English parents on what was then indiputably English soil. What was at issue was her status in the period 1776 - 1782 when the political status of South Carolina was in dispute. Justice Story reasons that if she was of age before 1782, then she had "elected" by her continued residence there to be an American citizen. If, however, she remained under a legal disability (still a minor) then the law views her status to follow that of her father who is deemed to have chosen for her.
But that case doesn't present the question of the status of someone born when the land was indiputably part of the U.S. status to parents who were not then citizens. And that is the question that arises when President Obama or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jibdal is discussed. But there is later a case which presented that very question -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. And, interestingly, Justice Story was cited as an authority on that question:
In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, decided (as appears by the records of this court) on the same day as the last case, it was held that a woman born in South Carolina before the Declaration of Independence, married to an English officer in Charleston during its occupation by the British forces in the Revolutionary War, and accompanying her husband on his return to England, and there remaining until her death, was a British subject within the meaning of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, so that her title to land in South Carolina, by descent cast before that treaty, was protected thereby. It was of such a case that Mr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court, said:
The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.3 Pet. 248. This last sentence was relied on by the counsel for the United States as showing that the question whether a person is a citizen of a particular country is to be determined not by the law of that country, but by the principles of international law. But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principal of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States; for he referred (p. 245) to the contemporaneous opinions in Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, [p661] above cited, in which this rule had been distinctly recognized, and in which he had said (p. 162) that "each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens," and, in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, he said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, "there are certain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law" [adding, in later editions "or the law of nations"] "as of unquestionable authority," and stated, as the first of those principles, "Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country." Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.
So Justice Story affirms as the rule of law in the U.S. that which I have asserted was the English rule pertaining to "natural born subjects" and which was later incorporated under the lingusiticaly similar term "natural born citizen" -- i.e., that "persons born in a country are generally deemed citizens of that country." Story does not qualify this (nor did Blackstone as to the English rule) with any requirement that the parents be citizens (subjects) of that country.
So it's great that you consider Justice Story "perhaps the greatest authority on the common law and its influence upon us in our early days." So now that I've made clear that he affirms for U.S. the jus soli rule which prevailed under the English common law, are you going to modify your position?
And Mr. Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall also disagreed with you in his concurring opinion in one of The Venus cases.
That portion where he quotes from Vattel C.J. Marsall is writing in dissent (a minor correction). The larger point is to observe that a) his opinion involved the question of domicile in an international law case, b) that citizenship wasn't in dispute, and c) that NO mention of the Constitution nor U.S. rules on citizenship was made. To conclude wrest from his dissent a supposed rule about the Constitutional term "natural born citizen" is one very, very large textual and logical leap.
I had a several round dialogue with DiogenesLamp on the prior Ted Cruz thread (titled "Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs . . ."). I can pull out all the points and arguments if needed. But you have enough at the moment dealing with J. Story.
Didn't say he was......but the language was still that of the "Frogs".....and the last sentence still sums it up!
He coined the term......"natural born citizen" because every reference to it during the 18th century said exactly that. It's just silly to deny something so obvious.
Contrary to your negativity regarding this..... that's what folks called it....and wrote when referencing it prior to its inclusion in the Constitution.
It must be difficult not being aware of what most others uncover...... without too much trouble. John Bingham of Ohio (father of the 14th amendment) was still referring to it in the original...... when he stated in the House of Representatives (March 9, 1866) the following:
" ... 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..."
The First Congress...3/4 of a century earlier (1790) had used the term as well:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(March 26, 1790)
Now....isn't it amazing that this term, "Natural Born Citizen" seemed to be in use quite frequently for the early years of this country? Do you imagine that it was just grabbed out of the air....or was the concept first developed at an earlier date?
Benjamin Franklin had this to say when writing to Vattel's editor on December 9, 1775:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
Do you suppose Franklin (who was fluent in French) added those words....."Natural Born Citizen"....or did they appear in his French edition? Maybe the editor had translated the publication himself into English.....adding those words.
Shame on him.
I won't call you stupid because I really don't know much about you.......but on the surface....you appear to just be silly.
[Vattel]coined the term......"natural born citizen" . . .
No he didn't. Vattel wrote in French. The earliest translated editions of his work didn't use the term "natural born citizen." However, that term WAS already in use in the U.S. For example, there was a series of naturalization acts in Massachusetts in the 1780's that used the terms "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject' in interchangeably. This has previously been documented on this forum. See Prior references By contrast, it wasn't until about 1797 that the English translation of Vattel using the term "natural born citizen" was published. So the logical conclusion is that the latter translation borrowed from existing English usage, rather than U.S. law borrowing from Vattel.
. . . because every reference to it during the 18th century said exactly that.
You haven't shown that those references trace to Vattel. You just assume away that problem with your argument.
Contrary to your negativity regarding this..... that's what folks called it....and wrote when referencing it prior to its inclusion in the Constitution.
Though prior to the inclusion of the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, there is no document usage in English of that term which conveys the notion "of two citizen parents." None. Zippo. Nada. The far more reasonable conclusion is that the documented interchangeable use of "natural born citizen" with "natural born subject" points to the former taking the meaning of the latter -- at least as to the status of a person born within the jurisdiction. And we have documented the words of one prominent Framer -- Alexander Hamilton -- who confirms this view. Hamilton, writing on the topic of how Constitutional terms are to be interpreted (in that case, the taxing power) writes:
"But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived [i.e., England]"
So there is much to suggest that "natural born citizen" finds its etymological root in the parallel English common law term "natural born subject." By contrast, there is little to support the notion the term derives from Vattel.
John Bingham of Ohio (father of the 14th amendment) was still referring to it in the original...... when he stated in the House of Representatives (March 9, 1866) the following:
" ... 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..."
It's interesting that you quote Sen. Bingham, for I usually find that "Vattel" proponents claim that the 14th Amendment's language "born . . . in the United Stated, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . ." has nothing to do with the term "natural born citizen."
Are you here saying that the two terms are interlinked? Please explain.
Now....isn't it amazing that this term, "Natural Born Citizen" seemed to be in use quite frequently for the early years of this country? Do you imagine that it was just grabbed out of the air....or was the concept first developed at an earlier date?
It's not amazing, given that the term was used in the period leading up to the framing of the Constitution and then in the Constitution itself. The problem for your argument is this usage existed prior to the time Vattel was first translated using the term "natural born citizen." This fact makes it very problematic to argue that this earlier usage somehow reflects or derives from a later translation of Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin had this to say when writing to Vattel's editor on December 9, 1775:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
No one disputes that Vattel had influence. But his influence was principally in the area of international law. "Citizenship" is a matter of municipal (domestic) law. Why is it to be supposed that Franklin in this quote is giving the least hint that "natural born citizen" derives form Vattel? Blackstone had far more influence than did Vattel. And Blackstone had far more to say on matters of municipal law than did Vattel. In purely circumstantial (probabilistic) terms, it is far more reasonable to conclude Blackstone and the English common law served as the linguistic origin of the term "natural born."
I realize you are struggling mightily (like many others) to elevate Vattel. But it's ultimately a futile effort when the counter-evidence and arguments are offered.
He coined the term......"natural born citizen" because every reference to it during the 18th century said exactly that.
Every reference to what? To Vattel's sentence in the Law of Nations? I'm not sure that's the case. From what I've read, most English translations prior to 1797 rendered the phrase as "the natives, or indigenes." If you know of multiple references to Vattel from before the Constitution was written that render "indigenes" as "natural born citizens," I'd appreciate a cite. As I said before, I think that after the Constitution--a pretty influential document--it's hard to be sure a translator didn't borrow the phrase from the Constitution,
Of course, the meaning of the original French isn't determined by any translation. Vattel wrote "les naturels, ou indigènes..." "Ou" means "or," so he's saying that "the naturals" are the same as "the indigenes." A French dictionary of 1798 says "indigènes" means "people established in a country from all time"--in other words, pretty much what we mean by "indigenous." That makes sense in Europe, where the people who were from a place were also (for the most part) the people that formed the political state that matched that place. That wasn't true here--the indigenous people were not part of the United States, which was formed by people from elsewhere. So trying to map what Vattel meant in French to something that makes sense for this new country is not as straightforward as you would like.
And, of course, in no sense can Vattel be said to have coined the phrase "natural born citizen."
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.