Posted on 10/15/2009 2:13:26 PM PDT by Danae
Because the “two citizen parent” requirement of NBC is a load of bunk that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or established law. It is a fictional device created by birthers to be an eligibility standard that Obama couldn’t possibly meet and enjoys support nowhere outside of birther circles.
On January 20th, 2009, a man whose foreign father is a matter of public record was sworn into the office of the presidency by the chief justice of the highest court in the land after a campaign where no one, not his opponents, not the previous administration, not the courts questioned his eligibility.
That’s how much of a loser this “two parent citizen” definition of NBC is.
***
You ignorant boor ...
1. The fact that no other candidate questioned his eligibility does NOT, in fact, mean that he is eligible ...
2. The courts do not produce “advisory opinions” in advance - they wait until cases are brought to them BEFORE they rule ...
3. There are many things “not found in the constitution” that have, in fact, been interpreted by the courts as being there ...
Cases in point, Gideon v. Wainwright (right of the indigent to a court-appointed attorney) ... Miranda v. Arizona (having rights read to a suspect) ... Roe v. Wade (implied right to privacy) ...
To assert that since it is “NOT SPECIFICALLY written in the Constitution” and, therefore, NOT what the Founding Fathers meant is assinine ...
4. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained in English Common Law. When the Constitution was adopted, they DID NOT write a whole new system of laws. They used English Common Law to the extent that they agreed with it, AND ONLY modified the laws they did not like. The term “natural born citizen [subject]” WAS NOT modified from English Common Law by the Founding Fathers ...
5. SCOTUS HAS NEVER ruled upon the definition of “natural born citizen” - this is why they need to take this case ... to put it to rest once and for all.
6. SCOTUS has ruled that it IS INDEED proper to reference English Common Law when the Founding Fathers’ intent is not clear ...
From Wong Kim Ark v. United States 169 U.S. 649 March 28, 1898:
” ... In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655] ...”
From Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162:
” ... 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts ... “
7. As for the “two citizen parent” rule - that is GENERALLY the most common way to prove natural born citizenship.
Per English Common Law, it natural born citizenship stems from TWO requrements ... being born within the sovreign’s dominion AND under the allegiance to that sovreign AND that sovreign ONLY ...
A person could possibly be a natural born citizen, born within the sovreign’s dominion, WITHOUT having two citizen parents - IF BOTH of those parents DID NOT owe an allegiance to any OTHER sovreign ... depends upon the prevailing law at the time.
In Obama’s case, he was born within the allegiance of the United States (14th Amendment) AND within the allegiance of Great Britain (British Nationality Act of 1948).
Thank you for defending our constitution.
Some may also find the following article of interest(see link)
The Article employs a well known process of logic, called deductive reasoning, to highlight what a Natural Born Citizen IS, by eliminating what a Natural Born Citizen IS NOT.
Defining Natural-Born Citizen
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Thank you again for your vigilance!
STE=Q
BTTT - (too tired to read your article tonight, will tomorrow - thank you!!!!!)
Obama is apparently NOT a natural born US citizen. So what is your point?
My point is that for “natural burn US citizen” to have any legal meaning, there must be an accepted legal definition of the term.
A single book by some long-dead French guy does not constitute an accepted legal definition. One could no doubt find other, different, definitions.
The Ark Decision (1898) goes into some detail on the matter, and even refers to Mr. Vattel’s work on the topic. However, the decision does so apparently only to dismiss it!
It’s a fine quote and all that, but the Supreme Court seems already to have dismissed it.
***
You are reading WAY too much into the Ark decision ...
The question SCOTUS considered was this AND this ONLY:
” ... The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
The finding was:
” ... The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...”
The decision was:
” ... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed ...”
The finding was that he was a CITIZEN, per the 14th Amendment and DID NOT address the term “natural born citizen” ...
The references to English Common Law were JUST obiter dictum [Latin for: by the way] and were incidental comments to the decision ...
FYI:
Justice Gray bastardized the citations in English Common Law, cherry-picking what he wanted to include in the decision. He also flatly MIS-STATED some of the citations.
Perhaps, he had an agenda ...
If you want to read the TRUE meanings of the citations - you NEED to Google them and read them in their entirety ...
They ALL state that a natural born subject is born within the king’ dominion AND under SOLE allegiance to him ...
Read the decision where the Supreme Court cites Vattel, followed by the fatal “however.”
You can keep grasping at straws, sister. I don’t have to take you seriously, though.
***
Show me where in the decision OR ANY OTHER CASE IN UNITED STATES JURISPRUDENCE that it defines what is or is not a natural born citizen ...
You can’t ...
BTW:
This has been bandied about by constitutional scholars on the cable news shows and NONE of them has stated that this has been put to rest by stare decisis (that which has been decided) ...
WHY, you may ask ???
BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN DECIDED ...
That is so funny, I just had someone throw that article at me trying to use it to prove Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. D’oh. Guess they didn’t READ it all the way through LMAO
Neither the COLB nor the l961 long form show citizenship of the parents. That would need to be independently established in Court. Besides he hasn't shown a physical CoLB to any court or official, only to his friends at Fact Check, who probably wouldn't know a foregery if it bit them in the assets.
Only if you accept the definition which you have offered here which is not encapsulated in US Law anywhere. Few people would agree with it, especially at this point in the election cycle.
If that’s the best we got I say we drop it and move on to something else.
It would make sense to get our Congress people to define NB in the law, and provide for the FEC or state Sec. of State’s to verify eligibility.
You are not going to get any court to make up case law based around an obscure 18th century legal dictionary that has the effect of removing an elected President.
Maybe you need a new hobby?
***
The Constitution is just that ... and we must abide by it - whether people agree with it or not.
Congress CANNOT define NBC by legislation, since it is in the Constitution - there are only 2 ways to define it:
1. By Constitutional Amendment defining it.
or
2. By SCOTUS determination of the existing phrase.
Congress could, however, pass legislation to provide for the verification of eligibility.
But, in Obama’s case, say for 2012, they would have to get a determination from SCOTUS as to the definition of NBC (in absence of a Constitutional Amendment).
I agree with you, Vattel’s 18th century definition is entirely too restrictive but, in absence of precedence, the courts have to look to the Founding Fathers’ intent in order to arrive at a decision.
Their intent will be found in English Common Law, upon which most of our law is based.
To argue otherwise, you would then have to throw out habeas corpus, right to confront accusers, trial by jury of peers, etc.
English Common Law has 2 requirements - birth within the sovreign’s dominion and loyalty to that sovreign and that sovreign only.
An 18th century French take on the subject of Natural Born is certainly interesting, but there is nothing that FORCES anyone to make it our 21st century rule.
The bottom line, in my mind, is that someone is going to have to irrefutably prove Obama is NOT a natural born US citizen, per current understanding of that term, before anyone takes this beyond the level of merely a curious conversation item.
***
Vattel’s definition is very restrictive - but if you take English Common Law into account, Obama still has a problem.
He was (likely) born in the United States, but was ALSO born subject to the jurisdiction of BOTH the United States AND Great Britain.
This runs contrary to English Common Law which, in absence of specific changes made by the Founding Fathers, formed the basis of United States Law.
The Founding Fathers made NO specific change to the term “natural born citizen”.
I won’t paste your excellent post concerning the Ark decision here - the question, finding, and decision.
But, see my post #204 - I wrote it as I was scrolling thru earlier posts ... did not see yours until later.
I guess great minds think alike !!!
Here ya go:
Adams papers, Lee family papers to prove NBC in Constitution came from Vattel?
Oh, and before anyone jumps to the conclusion that 100% of every document ever written by the founders has been cataloged in the L.O.C. since it's beginning, or in museums...
see here for an example of a once privately held 60-page notebook in the hand of Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman [a copy given to the LOC in 1993]...in which he mentions....drum roll please....Vattel!
Is it possible that many documents from any one of the founders is STILL held in private collections? Of course. What they contain, and who has them? Who knows.
It’s not a “French take.”
Vattel happened to be a Swiss man.
But literate people around the world read and wrote French, particularly people involved in statecraft. That is why the standard reference text for the law of nations was written in French.
This should be obvious to any literate person.
Hope this helps.
bookmark
I NEVER wrote that. Like I said my cat got on the keyboard while I was out helping a little old lady cross a busy street.
parsy, who will never save another stranded cat from a tree
The above is still the issue whether some Swiss guy wrote in French (one of the 3 languages of Switz.) or not.
What is your major malfunction? Are you completely unable to separate your dislike of Obama from the legal issues? Do you think everybody who disagrees with you is a socialist, lefty, liar, whatever?
If so, dude or dudette, I suggest immediate psychological help.
parsy, who cares
You are incorrect. The issue is not “per current understanding,” but per “per literate 1787 understanding,” which we have now confirmed you lack.
Hope this helps.
Ken Dunbar is one of my favorite on line radio hosts! Be sure to tune in and you will understand why! :)
Let’s see here. I could be dealing with parsy, or it maybe it’s his cat again.
Or it could be parsy pretending to be his cat because he is unable to be accountable, which is fine because Alinsky never required accountability. Soros certainly doesn’t.
Accountability is only necessary when your actions are founded on an ideology with intrinsic value. Liberalism, or “progressivism,” has no intrinsic value because its relativistic moral basis requires alienation from truth.
parsy, who like Alinsky is smart enough to devise a trap for his enemies, but (also like Alinsky) not smart enough to keep from falling into it himself
bump
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.