Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
The doubts were NOT about who the natural born Citizens were. The Court was quite clear regarding that.
The "doubts" the Court mentioned were wether children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents were even Citizens. The language is quite clear.
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Thank you for your response. Unless some other evidence is brought forward to support Nathan Dane's contention that Jefferson was a naturalized citizen of France, it is completely unreasonable to keep asserting that it is true in light of so much contrary evidence that it is not.
I hope this has not been raised in reference to the "natural born citizen" requirement, because that requirement did not apply to Jefferson
It is tangentially related to the issue, but it is brought up here more for the point of highlighting Jeff's tendency to KEEP ASSERTING something is true, when it has been demonstrated that it is in fact, "Not true."
Jeff wanted an example of where I had caught him lying, and that was merely the most recent one. There are other examples.
The Court here uses these two terms as synomyms, which is what I've decided the Founders meant when they used the term.
IOW, natural-born citizen is not some odd term describing a subspecies of native-born citizen, it is another way of saying the same thing.
NBC = native-born citizen = citizen at birth. One who acquires citizenship by birth rather than naturalization.
I realize some disagree, and I respect those of them whose opinion is based on logic. The problem is that we can argue these points forever, but in the real world somebody has to make a decision one way or the other. And in our system that final decision is made by the Supreme Court. Not always wisely or properly, but the only alternative to a final decision reached by political/legal/judicial means is one settled by violence. So I support our present laws while working to change those with which I disagree. If the Supremes were to rule contrary to my opinion, that would settle it, IMO.
What is going to be really funny (if Cruz runs) is watching leftists turn into birthers overnight. To be fair to them, Cruz is LESS qualified as NBC than Obama.
And this is why you inspire so much wrath. What I achieved, I achieved with the facts. Not "Unrelenting Propaganda." You were wrong on this point. You refused to accept that. You pushed it until I made a stronger effort to demonstrate that you were wrong. Rather than just take your lumps you started whining.
People don't respect that.
I perceive you are young and have much to learn. Intellectual Honesty is something you need to work at.
When you brought up Rawle, I admitted that he agreed with your position and that there was no way of interpreting it differently. Rawle is unequivocally on your side. I admitted it because the proof was unassailable. Rawle clearly articulated YOUR position. I didn't pigheadedly deny what was the obvious truth. I admitted that Rawle supported your position completely.
That is what Intellectual Honesty looks like. What makes people mad is when you insist on being dishonest about what is plainly in front of you.
Our Founding Fathers held Vattel in high esteem:
Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, Philadelphia, 9 December, 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. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) 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.
I disagree. Until the state of Hawaii produces all ORIGINAL records regarding Obama's birth, his qualifications are unknown.
That is my understanding as well. The Opinion of Nathan Dane does not make something true, especially in light of the other information available about the accusation.
I'll add this info:
Thanks for that! I am often amazed at how I can spend quite a while looking for a piece of information, trying various word combinations in my search, and still other people can find stuff that I completely missed!
The parallels don't end there. In 1992, Republicans whispered that Mr Clinton once had sought foreign citizenship. Nearly two centuries before, Jefferson's foes spread the equally baseless rumour he had accepted French citizenship from Robespierre in person. If Jefferson were elected, wrote a Connecticut paper of the day, the Jacobin Terror would be revisited upon America: 'Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest all will be openly taught and practised.'
Thank you for your response, and I agree.
OK. Let’s assume for purposes of discussion that Obama was born in Kenya or somewhere else outside US. Then his qualifications are identical to those of Cruz.
No, I think you pretty well covered it. That is how I see it as well. Thanks for your response.
I support Ted Cruz, and I don't care about whether he technically meets the requirements or not. I perceive him as being far more American than is Obama.
Ted Cruz meets the spiritual intent of the law, and that's better than anyone can say of Obama who is completely Foreign in Spirit.
I agree. The Founders apparently had the idea that the Presidency should be limited to native born Americans to prevent someone with un or anti-American sentiments from getting in.
This is obviously one of their few significant failures of imagination. I don’t think it ever crossed their minds that a large number of Americans would become anti-American, but that of course has happened.
Who could have predicted the social rot we are now experiencing? In their time, foolish behavior was punished by consequences. Who would have ever dreamed that we would become so prosperous that we would support ruinous policies and ideas?
I fear we are disintegrating.
Thanks for the kind words. But I share the other responder’s puzzlement as to why you let this stuff get to you. So some other poster follows you around and hurls invective at you every chance he gets. So what? Some forums have Ignore setting that let you specify people whose posts you’ll never see. Just pretend there’s one here, too.
Well, ideally Nathan Dane would write another book and say he was mistaken. Failing that, I'd probably accept a reputable historian's explanation of why Dane thought that (I know you think he was duped by the Albany newspaper, but like I said, it seems unlikely to me that he'd forget a major issue from a presidential campaign 16 years earlier) along with a flat assertion that Jefferson never had French citizenship of any type for any reason.
Note: honorary citizenship does not grant or confer upon the recipient the rights and obligations of allegiance and duty of obediance to the sovereign an actual citizenship entails, except to the extent those rights and obligations are specifically are enumerated in the declaration of honorary citizenship. Ireland is one of today’s rare exceptions. Ireland has granted some honorary citizenship which includes a right of abode in Ireland. The French honorary citizenships did not include any obligations of allegiance to the sovereign government of France or other duties of obediance to that sovereign government. Since there were no such obligations of fealty to interfere with U.S. sovereign powers, the honorary citizenship had no impact upon the allegiance of the recipients of the honors and their U.S. citizenship.
By contrast, birth under the protection of a foreign sovereign and its jurisdiction creates an obligation of allegiance and duty of obediance to that sovereign.
I appreciate the education in each post, along with your teaching style.
Take it from someone conceived and welcomed to the world by the fading light of infatuation, placing logic in front of infatuation can be dangerous and is almost always discouraging.
But, the effort isn't wasted...
Thank you
Most of us know because it is a historical fact, that Jefferson, when he founded our first law school at William and Mary in 1779, made Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ our first law book, where it remained the principal text for fifty years, during which it was our most cited legal document became the standard resource in most of our new law schools.
But, inspired by yours’ and Diogenes’ contributions, Hamilton, who was Washington's closest adviser as Secretary of the Treasury, made the following qualification in his response to a question from Washington, September 15, 1790:
But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these different opinions. This is the sum of what he advances: That an innocent passage is due to all nations with whom a state is at peace, for troops equally with individuals, and to annoy as well as to avoid an enemy. That the party asking and the party asked are both, in different degrees, judges of the question when innocent?
If Mr. Levin made the disparaging comment about Vattel attributed to him I can only suggest that everyone trust his own intelligence and read Vattel for yourselves. Levin's suggestions in his new book seem a valuable contribution to restoring our Constitution. His Liberty and Tyranny presented the Madison letter explaining why terms in the Constitution are not defined therein. But he blatantly cited the 1790 Naturalization Act in his support of Cruz' eligibility, knowing, as he must have, that the 1790 Act was entirely repealed, and replaced in 1795 with the same words about children born beyond the seas, but replacing ‘natural born citizen’ with ‘citizen’. He knows the Supreme Court has unique authority to interpret the Constitution but talks about statutes confirming Article II Section 1. I can only guess at why, but we must have more data before the depth of our corruption is exposed. Meanwhile I'll regard the obvious misstatements by a man who certainly knows the truth and assume they are like the obvious lies fed to their captors by POWs for publishing in Western Media.
Read Minor v. Happersett. It is a marvel of clear construction. As our first ‘Black President’, Bill Clinton put it, “It depends upon what is is!” The ‘is’ in Minor v. Happersett is a definition - if and only if - as in the definition of - equality, it means ‘the same as.” ‘Natural born citizen’ is not an inclusive phrase. It doesn't mean ‘born on our soil to parents who were its citizen, but if the father was a trans-gender, properly pigmented, undocumented potential Democrat voter, we don't mean to discriminate against him’. A reinterpretation requires a Supreme Court decision or an amendment, and the Court, with two Obama appointees, four confirmed liberals and a probably compromised Chief Justice, refuses to risk exposing the crimes committed by allowing the confirmation of Obama.
Again, Obama and McCaskill, and later, every U.S. Senator agreed with Judge Chertoff who reasserted the need for “citizen parents”. They are all criminals, even if we have some sympathy for the risks legislators would take, Nathan Deal did take, in surviving state-run media. We will have to learn the hard way, which may forever change our government from what is already a questionable republic, which serves another master.
If we had honored our Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1, we would not be struggling with a government, and executive with his military, intelligence, and state department thoroughly penetrated, and parties including the American Conservative Union, with senior board members supporting and belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood costing us the lives of our soldiers and wealth of our citizens, supporting the Muslim Brotherhoods clearly stated imposition of Sharia on us and consolidation of the Caliphate. That is why Assad must follow Mubarak and Qaddafi, and probably, Saddam Hussein, to protect the Saudi Family, Wahhabi, like Huma Abedin and John Brennan, CIA Director, who converted in the 1990s, and Suhail Khan of CPAC and the American Conservative Union, sponsored by Grover Norquist whose wife is Wahhabi. We are the muscle in a proxy war for the survival of the Saudi Royal Family, and our Constitution, had we honored it, would have protected us because, in the words of 14th Amendment author, John Bingham, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty", the phrase now part of our naturalization oath.
Thomas Jefferson was in in the Virginia legislature from 1776 until his election as Governor in 1779. It was Jefferson that drafted the declaration of independence from Great Britain that passed in the Congress of Virginia, 1776. At the time of the declaration of independence, all laws on citizenship and immigration were codified by the individual states. In 1783, Jefferson was appointed to the Congress of the Confederation and went to France as a U.S. Diplomat.
France had been signing treaties with other nations on diplomacy for hundreds years prior to Jefferson arriving in France to represent the nation which just declared its independence from Great Britain. Jefferson enjoyed full diplomatic immunity. Any offers and acceptance of citizenship would have been honorary to encourage and affirm diplomatic relations.
In 1779, Jefferson wrote a bill on becoming a citizen of Virginia. Among the requirements to become a citizen were:
- 2 years of residency in Virginia prior to passing of the Citizenship Act.
- Statement of oath or affirmation on fealty to the Commonwealth of Virginia before a Court of competent jurisdiction to all those who migrate to the state.
- A certificate of citizenship is issued to all who take an oath
- All citizens remain citizens until an oath of renouncement is made in a Court of competent jurisdiction in the state.
Later, the various states with their individual laws and regulations united to form the united States of America. A citizen of each of those states, regardless of how they obtained citizenship in the state, became a citizen of the United States. Jefferson was qualified to be POTUS because he was a citizen of Virginia and the United States at time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
The founding fathers placed more emphasis on citizenship of the state in which the person resided more than place of birth. Furthermore, the founding fathers placed more emphasis on ensuring a person had not renounced their citizenship after making an oath or affirmation of fealty to the state during their lifetime.
Place of birth is a modern day convenience to establish NBC status. Most native born persons are NBC, but not all. Since the founding of this country, citizens have had the freedom to renounce their citizenship during their lifetime. If so, NBC status is lost forever.
here is the ongoing birther-biz
who dropped out of ME-2?
Sox vs. Sox tonite in Boston.
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.