It seems like an utter disconnect from reality to say such a thing.
Posted on 02/05/2015 6:37:16 AM PST by wtd
Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact "natural born Citizens".
Mrs. Fair said: "Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a 'citizen' of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute."
As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President." Mrs. Fair continued: "That phrase 'natural born Citizen' has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they "natural born Citizens" eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest."
Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: "My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution - such as 'natural born Citizen' - is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.' By repeatedly refusing to 'say what the law is' regarding 'natural born Citizen', the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess."
See a copy of the petition here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254604115/Fair-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari
See the Supreme Court Docket for Case No 14-933 here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-933.htm
For More Information Contact: TRACY A. FAIR: (410-552-5907) OR TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET
Well if George Romney's Father had officially expatriated himself, and if his Mother had done as well, then George Romney did not have any sort of claim for American citizenship. But I don't think George Romney's Father actually renounced his citizenship, and I expect it was still in effect when George Romney was born, so Romney gets that "naturalization" citizenship that Wong Kim Ark talks about.
That has no bearing on the duties and powers of a Secretary of State. The fact that some people would have to engage in a lot of idiocy is no excuse for believing that the Secretary of State would have to accept such a bunch of idiocy.
I am not referring to Wong Kim Ark in regards to Obama's eligibility, i'm referring to the understanding of the Judges who wrote Wong Kim Ark regarding children born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,...
If I understand this statement correctly, No citizen born outside of the Jurisdiction of the United States can be regarded as anything but a "naturalized" citizen.
What do you think that statement means?
I think that the majority of the Wong court was drawing a strict distinction for illustrative purposes between born citizens under the 14th Amendment and naturalized citizens.
I also think that statement in the Wong holding is in conflict with this statement: “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”.
— United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103).
It is also in conflict with current U.S. law. One of several examples of the conflict: 8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...”
The bottom line is that there have always been differences of opinion on this issue that have gen resolved resolved on a case by case basis.
Secretaries of State operate under the laws of the state. When there is a disagreement over what the law says or implies, the courts resolve the conflict. No court in any state granted a Writ of Mandamus to mandate that a Secretary of State must (has an affirmative duty to) confirm the eligibility of a presidential candidate although there were quite a few Secretaries of State who had lawsuits filed against them for that very purpose.
The first such lawsuit was conservative presidential candidate of the American Indpendent Party Alan Keyes and others suing California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Obama and others. The lawsuit went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but all rulings were in Bowen’s favor.
There is no Secretary of State in the nation who has statutory subpoena power or investigative authority. Lacking those powers, any investigations would be somewhat hollow.
But I wish this woman luck with her blog pimping or whatever it is she's doing.
I feel ya. When Wong Kim Ark says what you want, it's "the LAW!", but when it doesn't, it's just suggestions for "illustrative purposes". :)
I also think that statement in the Wong holding is in conflict with this statement: “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”. — United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103).
Oh well, if the foundational principle of your legal arguments is that "natural born" means whatever congress says, then they took that back in 1795. (When they removed that term "natural born" from the 1795 naturalization law.) If the Congress can giveth, the Congress can taketh away. :)
You still don't seem to be "getting" that those were "naturalization" laws, meaning anyone to whom they applied was "naturalized", not "natural born."
Yeah, the idea that Secretaries of State have some sort of obligation to the Nation in which they live is just utter nonsense. It's good that we have all these courts that tell us government officials don't have to be concerned with the best interests of their country.
But this concept of State officials not enforcing Federal Laws (I'm lumping in Constitutional requirements into this category.) has an interesting history. Do you have any idea what was the occasion that the first such ruling occurred and who made it and why?
There is no Secretary of State in the nation who has statutory subpoena power or investigative authority. Lacking those powers, any investigations would be somewhat hollow.
Yes, someone who has the authority to say "No proofie no ballotie" is completely powerless to get any answers from would be candidates. Why they will just have to put any tom dick or harry on the ballot. But then how do you explain what they did with Roger Calero ?
Shouldn't those powerless Sec States have given him the Obama treatment?
Does she have standing to sue?
I like having Secretaries of State who are conservative enough to follow the letter of the law. Making the laws up as they go along and exceeding their constitutional authority is what liberals do.
I can assure you that if any of this nation’s 28 Republican Secretaries of State had received a Writ of Mandamus from their state Supreme Court ordering them to investigate Obama’s natural born citizenship claim, they would have followed its dictates explicitly.
I’ll guess that the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Resolution of 1799 written by James Madison were the first acts of state nulification of the federal law, the Alien and Sedition Acts.
However what you are missing is that STATE courts and STATE Election Boards, much more often than federal courts have ruled on Obama’s eligibility
Roger Calero offered no defense of his eligibility. Barack Obama offered defenses of his eligibility
“You still don’t seem to be “getting” that those were “naturalization” laws, meaning anyone to whom they applied was “naturalized”, not “natural born.”
What you don’t seem to get is that “collective naturalization” occurs when a political entity, such as a brand spanking new nation like The United States of America, first creates its own citizens or when an existing nation adds new territory and citizens. For example, former slaves were collectively naturalized in 1868 and American Indians were collectively naturalized in 1924. Collective Naturalization also occurred for residents of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Texas in 1845, and Hawaii in 1898.
“Natural born” and “collectively naturalized” are synonymous. We know that is the case because the Naturalization Act of 1790 is defining who can be a “natural born citizen” while being born “beyond the sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Wong Kim Ark could not have been naturalized as an immigrant due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The legal issue was that because he was born in San Francisco, was he a natural born citizen/Citizen of the United States at Birth.
There are people who want to put natural born citizen and Citizen of the United States at Birth into separate categories but that position has never prevailed in the states or at the federal level.
Colonial Naturalization (Pre-1790)
British immigrants were automatically citizens of the colonies (British Empire). Seven of the original colonies had their own laws for naturalizing foreigners as citizens of the British Empire colony. After the Revolutionary War, the individual states established their own naturalization laws and procedures.
3 Types of Colonial Naturalization
Denization—A type of naturalization used to obtain land. You could buy and sell land, but could not hold public office. There were no political privileges associated with denization.
Oath of Allegiance—This type of naturalization during the colonial period was used to renounce all former country loyalties. This gave the immigrant full privileges, including voting and holding public office.
Collective citizenship—This naturalization process was used to naturalize a group of people without using documents. Collective naturalization happened when the United States became a country in 1776 and all those living in the country (except Native Americans and African Americans) were collectively and automatically made US citizens.
No they aren't, and it makes me wonder about your mental processes to see you assert such a nonsensical idea.
That statement has left me completely befuddled as to how to respond to you. It's like we don't even share a common understanding of words or something.
Could Barry Goldwater have been elected President if he had gotten enough Electoral votes? He was born in Arizona territory before it became a state.
Was Charles Curtis elected as Herbert Hoover’s Vice President? He was born in Kansas Territory before it became a state. Those are two examples of collective naturalization and the natural born citizenship requirement being synonymous.
Perhaps you could share with us an example of when collective naturalization and natural born citizenship were NOT synonymous?
I have no need to sink into the logical fallacies of argumentum ad hominem. I’ll just keep posting facts and let you continue to rant away.
It seems like an utter disconnect from reality to say such a thing.
Is it your contention that when former slaves were collectively naturalized in 1868 they did not qualify for natural born citizenship status? And the same for American Indians in 1924 by virtue of the Indian Citizenship Act? How about free white former citizens of the Republic of Texas in 1845?
“BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: provided that the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.” (Approved June 2, 1924)”
If you think anyone back then would have regarded former slaves as "natural born citizens" or Indians as "natural born citizens" or Texan Nationals as "natural born citizens", you have got a screw loose.
In the case of Slaves or Indians it is a virtual certainty that there would be no natural affinity for the nation and no love lost for it. You think the founders would be okay with American Hating people in the office of the Presidency? It seems to me that this is the very sort of thing that article II was intended to prevent.
In the case of the Foreign Country then known as Texas, it would also be insane to think that anyone from there would have much love for the rest of the nation. (as a couple of decades later was amply demonstrated.)
No, I don't think by any stretch of the standards could you arrive at the conclusion that slaves, Indians and Texans of their respective eras would be regarded as "natural born citizens" of the United States.
.
But since we're on this topic, did you know we once had a vice President of Indian Ancestry?
But guess what? He had an American Father.
Yeah, in a previous post I just referenced Charles Curtis being born in Kansas Territory before Kansas became a state and I know that he was of part Kansa, Osage, and Potawatomi on his mother’s side of the family.
Lumping all slaves and American Indians together as monolithic wholes is a mistake. There were slaves and American Indians who gave their lives for this country in every war it has ever fought including the Revolutionary War.
Crispus Attucks, a half black-half American Indian was the first person known to have died for the cause of American freedom at the Boston Massacre in 1770.
George Washington’s valet, Will Lee was with him every day of the Revolutionary War.
There was no individual naturalization process for former slaves or American Indians. They were both granted Citizenship at Birth status.
By your theory, former confederates who waged war against the United States of America should not be considered as natural born citizens. When former confederates were amnestied by President Grant, they reestablished natural born citizenship status. Lots of confederates hated the United States of America enough to kill every Union soldier they encountered and they also were willing to die to be rid of the USA.
Straw man. I am doing no such thing. Indeed, I have posted several times on the contributions of Black Americans to the Revolutionary war, and have long noted that free Blacks were regarded as citizens, and able to pass on their citizenship to their children. It has long been one of my arguing points that place of birth doesn't matter, but the possession of citizenship by one's father does.
There was no individual naturalization process for former slaves or American Indians. They were both granted Citizenship at Birth status.
If they were free. Not if they were slaves.
By your theory, former confederates who waged war against the United States of America should not be considered as natural born citizens.
No, you are deliberately misinterpreting my theory. According to "my" theory, Confederates would be regarded as "natural born citizens" who renounced their citizenship, in the same manner as George Washington renounced his subjugation.
Surely you don't think it would have been reasonable to put a former Confederate at the Head of the Union Army, do you?
When former confederates were amnestied by President Grant, they reestablished natural born citizenship status.
That is a "fact" not in evidence. I would interpret the situation as their never having lost "natural born citizen" status, but had voluntarily expatriated themselves.
Due to the technicality of the Constitution not explicitly forbidding someone who had expatriated themselves, they might have been legally qualified to run for the office, but only by a technicality. I very much doubt the electorate would have been impressed by such a gimmick.
Here are your own words: “In the case of Slaves or Indians it is a virtual certainty that there would be no natural affinity for the nation and no love lost for it. You think the founders would be okay with American Hating people in the office of the Presidency? It seems to me that this is the very sort of thing that article II was intended to prevent.”
There is nothing more that I need to say on that point.
“That is a “fact” not in evidence. I would interpret the situation as their never having lost “natural born citizen” status, but had voluntarily expatriated themselves.
Due to the technicality of the Constitution not explicitly forbidding someone who had expatriated themselves, they might have been legally qualified to run for the office, but only by a technicality. I very much doubt the electorate would have been impressed by such a gimmick.”
An act of Congress passed in 1855 stated that “any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen.” White alien women became U.S. citizens by marriage to a U.S. citizen or through an alien husband’s naturalization. Non-white women were precluded from derivative naturalization.
Some former Confederates who waged war against the U.S. were indicted for treason, including Jefferson Davis. However President Andrew Johnson issued a blanket amnesty. Some high ranking confederates were required to take a loyalty oath before being re-naturalized.
When President Johnson implemented his reconstruction plan, it offered a general amnesty to those taking an oath of future loyalty, although high-ranking Confederate officials and wealthy Confederates had to petition the president for individual pardons. The plan also required states to ratify the 13th Amendment which prohibited slavery and to repudiate Confederate debts.
Congress refused to recognize the state governments reconstructed under Johnson’s plan. Congressional Republicans were disturbed by the reluctance of white Southerners to ratify the 13th Amendment, their refusal to grant voting rights to black men, their enactment of black codes which limited the rights and liberties of blacks, and their election of former Confederates, such as Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, to state and national offices.
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.