Posted on 08/25/2009 11:56:37 AM PDT by rxsid
Here they are (pgs. 823-828):
Tort Law - Prenatal Injuries - Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries - Stallman v. Younquist Ill 2d 267, 531 N.E. 2d 355 (1988)
My judgment on this topic is somewhat clouded by the fact that I would very much appreciate the opportunity to argue the issue to the Supreme Court.
The "natural born" requirement has its roots in ancient Common Law and Continental and Roman Law doctrines. There is in fact, significant Common Law authority on the issue which in my view is likely to be viewed as controlling.
As a theoretical proposition, there is significant support for the Father citizen rule and perhaps even for a Two Parent rule. And I don't think subsequent US Citizenship statutes would necessarily overrule these doctrines.
However I am also convinced that in Obama's case, even though you ought to be able to find him ineligible, if the Court concludes he was born in the US, he is almost certainly likely to win. And, on the other hand, if the Court concludes he was born in Mombasa, he is almost certainly likely to lose.
There are in fact also reasons to examine the outcome on the born in the USA facts.
Consider this hypothetical. A current citizen of the US was born in the US. Both parents are US Citizens. The paternal Grandfather was an immigrant and naturalized US Citizen. However under the law of the country of his origin, the current person is also a citizen of that country. Is there an argument the current person is not eligible to serve as President? If so, having reached a signficant age of seniority, is such an argument enhanced by the fact that the current person also holds a Passport from the country of his grandfather's origin?
Ping.
Does (for example) British Common law "extend past" children of the subject? From what I've read, it seems to indicate "children" and not any further. But there could be British case law that would address subsequent generations.
If that were the case, and controlling, then perhaps a large portion of our country would still be considered British Subjects and/or citizens of other countries due to their American revolutionary and before ancestors having come from another land. Following that, only "Native American Indians" might be considered as NBC.
I would say the concept's in Law of Nations supersedes that of British common law, on this issue, as it's been "on the books" far longer that the latter.
If Barry is eligible with his foreign national father (& his foreign citizenship at birth), then Kim Jong Il, et' al, would be able to have their son/daughter born in this country, be eligible to the POTUS and thus Commander in Chief.
I think there is zero percent chance that was the intention of the framers...and good for our national security in these modern times.
and NOT good for our national security
Yup.
He is not a “natural born citizen”. His father WAS NOT an American Citizen.
All the argument about where he was born is kind of fluff and irrelevant. If it could be proved he was born in Kenya, that solidifies the case.
But he could have been born on the White House steps - and he still would not be a “Natural born Citizen”.
bump to mark the thread
Thank you very much for posting this. Despite the charges of nuts and conspiracy theorists, this topic has been very well covered on the FR. This being only the most recent example. If they had 1/10th the discussion in the media a year ago, this would have been settled before the election.
Pinging The List.
“...he could have been born on the White House steps - and he still would not be a Natural born Citizen.”
Exactly.
The birth certificate is actually a red herring, just as Presdient Arthur’s accuser charged him with being born in Canada, a charge that was false. It doesn’t really matter where he was born, he would still not be a natural born citizen.
Rather, Arthur’s father simply hadn’t yet naturalized as a U.S. citizen when his son was born in Vermont. He didn’t naturalize until 14 years after Chester A. Arthur’s birth.
Good ping, Lucy.
And there’s more to come and not “just from” Leo D.
I only wish that your dream comes true!
Arthur's administration (surprisingly, considering his somewhat shady reputation upon entering office) was considered by historians to be well run - no big scandals, no wars of consequence, no major economic crises.
Bookmarked for when I fix my computer... :(
Somebody else said that about the Law of Nations--that just isn't so. The Law of Nations is an 18th Century Document (1758); the Common Law dates to the 12th Century; and concepts about subjects and citizens date back to the Roman Empire.
Further, the Common Law is the Law in the US; Law of Nations is not.
Reason Law of Nations is significant is that the principal drafters of the Constitution were aware of it and had read it and used it as a resource for their work. But the actual legal impact of the terms stands for itself--the concept of a common law subject which was lifted to the Constitution as a citizen is a pure Common Law topic (maybe the founders thought as described in Law of Nations--but the law is the Common Law).
Further, there is another body of law that is also significant and that is Roman law about citizens.
Law of Nations is just another treatise on legal topics of the day--it isn't law; it just purports to be a summary of the author's view of what the law is; real lawyers don't cite that stuff unless they can't come up with real authority to support their argument.
I doubt that Common Law would be viewed as "extending past" but the point of my hypothetical is that there are people out there in the US who have presumably Citizen Parents whose citizen parents are also citizens of another country; and who themselves are citizens of that other country who can still get second country Passports based on their citizenship.
I don't think anything like that would have happened at Common Law although you look at the successors to Edward the III after the death of the Black Prince and see that they were really all French first and wonder.
On the other hand, they clearly did deal with issues about children born outside the country; and children born as subjects to parents who were clearly agents of another sovereign when born and there is commentary in the common law about how those people were addressed.
This is from Leo Donofrio’s web site? Looks like Leo is still in the game.
And his idea that descendants of Chinese immigrants born in the US can never be citizens at birth was reversed by a SCOTUS decision in the 1890s which granted citizenship to such persons based upon the 14th Amendment.
And who was on that Supreme Court? Justice Gray who was appointed by the later found to be ineligible Arthur.
Wong Kim Arc
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/WROTNOWSKI-APPLICATION-REFERRED-TO-FULL-COURT-BY-JUSTICE-SCALIA-—DISTRIBUTED-FOR-CONFEREN.html
Remember the old german saying:
“They came for the jews, but I was not a jew so I did nothing ... they came for the intellectuals, but I was not an intellectual, so I did nothing ...”
Eventually, they get to you and you have no one else to stand with.
We believe in truth and justice in maintaining the rule of law - they believe the ends justifies the means, and their goal is the destruction of America on the way to establishing a worldwide fascist oligarchy.
I believe this blatant disregard of the Constitution needs to be our ‘line in the sand’. It’s a clear illustration of their complete disregard for what America is built upon. If we continue to raise the issue, the vast majority of mature, adult, reasoning (non-ideologue) Americans (I hope they exist) will become educated about the founding principles, see the transgressions and insist on correction and compliance.
If we don’t, they will continue their piecemeal destruction until they have sufficient power.
Then it’s done, just like it was in Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia ...
If their offspring were born in the United States, then they are Natural Born Citizens and eligible for the Presidency no matter how loathsome their fathers might have been.
Most importantly, however, they have to receive more votes than their opponents.
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.