Posted on 12/05/2009 11:07:08 AM PST by betty boop
Thank you ever so much for posting it!
Au contraire, Madame!
You missed the "power" of my point: They recognized and acknowledged that they, themselves were not natural born (and never could be...) -- therefore, they "grandfathered themselves in" -- to "get around" the "natural born" requirement they had just codified in the Constitution.
If we can determine the birth status of our earliest Presidents, we will have some de facto examples of what "natural born" IS NOT.
And, if one of them matches Øbama's situation, then the case is closed; he is not qualified -- no matter how many fools voted for him and "gave him a pass".
~~~~~~~~~
I agree with you on Arthur. However, IIRC, his "natural born" status was not questioned until after he had served his one term...
His father: Augustine Washington was born at Mattox Creek, in Virginia, in 1694.
His mother: Mary Ball Washington (1708 – 1789) was the second wife to Augustine Washington (after the first wife, Jane Butler, died) and was also the mother of George Washington. Mary Ball Washington was born as Mary Ball in 1708 in Lively, Lancaster County, Virginia.
Bottom line: George Washinton was a "Natural Born" Citizen, both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Solis.
~~~~~~~~~
As they say in the military, "No joy with George"... :-(
No I didn't; not necessarily. I thought I was just enlarging it, expanding it. :^) Metaphorically, so to speak. The Muse was speaking.... LOL!
I had not, of course, done any of my "homework" on the geneologies of the Framers at that time. I'm tickled to learn that George Washington was a natural-born citizen of the United States of America. And I daresay, so was Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a bunch of the others. :^)
Maybe we need to narrow our search to those who did not have two American citizen parents, and see if any one of those persons ever became president.
I figure: That sort of thing does not happen.
Except for "the exceptions that prove the rule": Chester A. Arthur and BHO.
You wrote:
I agree with you on Arthur. However, IIRC, his "natural born" status was not questioned until after he had served his one term....Well if that's so, then all I can say is: better late than never!
However, some sources suggest that this issue was publicly topical during his presidency. Jury's still out for me.
You wrote:
If we can determine the birth status of our earliest Presidents, we will have some de facto examples of what "natural born" IS NOT.Call me a blockhead, but on preliminary findings, I'd say our earliest presidents are de facto examples of exactly what "natural-born" actually, really IS. So how can they show you what it IS NOT?
Jeepers, I must be missing something here.
Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your scintillating and thought-provocative essay/post!
I was overly optimistic there; should have use the conditional "might" instead of "will".
I failed to take into account how long it took to get around to the Constitution. By that time, most of the prime actors (and their parents) were, indeed, "natural born". That makes me especially curious as to who they were "grandfathering in" -- at that late date...
'Twas worth a look, anyhoot (to paraphrase one or two of my favorite folk...)
;-)
It used to say simply "The Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation, relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect."
But it now reads:
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before the earliest of the following dates:
(B) In the case of any final regulation, the date on which any proposed or temporary regulation to which such final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register.
(C) The date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to regulations filed or issued within 18 months of the date of the enactment of the statutory provision to which the regulation relates.
(3) Prevention of abuse
The Secretary may provide that any regulation may take effect or apply retroactively to prevent abuse.
(4) Correction of procedural defects
The Secretary may provide that any regulation may apply retroactively to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation.
(5) Internal regulations
The limitation of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any regulation relating to internal Treasury Department policies, practices, or procedures.
(6) Congressional authorization
The limitation of paragraph (1) may be superseded by a legislative grant from Congress authorizing the Secretary to prescribe the effective date with respect to any regulation.
(7) Election to apply retroactively
The Secretary may provide for any taxpayer to elect to apply any regulation before the dates specified in paragraph (1).
(8) Application to rulings
The Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling (including any judicial decision or any administrative determination other than by regulation) relating to the internal revenue laws shall be applied without retroactive effect.
The #7 item, IMHO, gives the Secretary way too much authority to be biased in favor of select taxpayers.
For a history of the changes to this section of the tax code: US Code (Cornell)
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
I too am curious to know who was being grandfathered in by the language they used. Evidently they would not bother to include the language without reason. So if we discover the biography of their target we would have insight to what they meant was excluded with the term "natural born."
This is what John Hemenway pointed out in the opening brief in Hollister v. Soetoro as it was posted here from Scribd. He asks why this Supreme Court precedent would not apply to Colonel Hollister as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. If if the law is upheld and applied in that case it would seem to apply to Colonel Hollister and to many other members of the reserves as well. Colonel Hollister has challenged Soetoro a/k/a Obama as being only de facto and not de jure before he has been called back to active duty. That is why the Hollister case should now be the focus of a good deal of attention -- because of the Ryder case.
It wouild be good not to represent that Ryder says more than it says because the de facto officer doctrine does not apply to decisions as yet unmade which is the point of Ryeder after all where Coastguardsman Ryder brought up the point before the decision was made as does Colonel Hollister in his case.
This seems to be the only case not dismissed for want of standing but for another reason going to the merits. I wonder why this has not been taken note of on Free Republic. it does not seem unimportant. The defendants Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not appeal that finding although they will raise it on appeal. As an issue it was not put before the Court of Appeals by the parties although the Court of Appeals is likely to raise it on its own.
Yes, but here's the thing: they were natural-born Americans, but still British subjects/citizens up to the Revolution. In effect, the Revolution was (among other things) about repudiating the British doctrine of perpetual citizenship. It was a transfer of sovereignty from King George III to the American people themselves, under their already well-developed system of local self-government. Finally, this boils down to the question of one's principal loyalty.
The Revolution hit the "reset button" of citizenship. Had it failed, there would have been a whole lot of dead (American-born) British subjects. Our Founders were men with a price on their head. But miraculously, it all worked out. George eventually beat a retreat, and for the first time there was such a thing as United States citizenship.
The loyalty issue was a problem even during the war. There were two camps: the Loyalists (identifying as British subjects/citizens) and the revolutionaries (who of course wanted to separate from the British Crown). Benedict Arnold ended up being an inadvertent Loyalist....
In the main, citizenship entails the idea of loyalty to one's sovereign. We the People are the sovereignty. I wonder whether such an idea can move a BHO....
And that's the problem I have with him in a nutshell.
p.s.: I'm scratching my head, too, over who the Framers might have been "grandfathering in."
Two categories in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6: (1) natural born citizen; (2) or "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
It seems to me that (2) refers to the post-Revolutionary period, when the nation was still organized under the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps many people came over from Europe after the war, and became naturalized United States citizens in the pre-Constitution period? Anyhoot, category (2) is strictly time-delimited: "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
It appears neither category applies to our sitting POTUS.
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts, TXnMA!
The ones excluded would evidently be those who did not become citizens upon inception, e.g. non-residents temporarily "in" the country and slaves who were seen as property.
Interesting but it still leaves us with their intent - evidently that henceforth all presidents must be natural born citizens.
If I understand that correctly, then a non-resident newborn could not become president. McCain arguably would have been a resident at birth because the U.S. was the legal residency of his parents who were on temporary duty outside the U.S.
I do not venture a guess whether Obama's mother's legal residency changed to Kenya upon her marriage based on the laws at the time.
Thank you so much for all your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
It seems to me the Framers' intent MUST have to do with the loyalty issue: The POTUS — the CEO, CIC, and CLO of the United States — must be someone about whom there can be no doubt whatsoever as to his devotion and loyalty to the nation. There can be no suspicion of "divided loyalties" on behalf of another sovereign state or interest, overt or concealed.
Thus the language of "natural-born": birth from two American parents (wherever they are in the world at the time of birth) instantly confers American "natural-born" citizenship on the child. A child born to Americans could be presumed to have no "divided loyalties." This is, again, the doctrine of jus sanguinis in action.
Trying to straighten everything out, it seems there are three basic categories of American citizenship: (1) natural-born (jus sanguinis doctrine — which is why John McCain is a natural-born citizen of the United States irrespective of his Panamanian birth); (2) native-born (14th Amendment, jus solis doctrine — place of birth determines citizenship; e.g., the "anchor baby" phenomenon); and (3) Naturalized (foreign-born individuals who have chosen to become U.S. citizens). Presumably, children born in America to naturalized citizens are themselves not only "native-born," but also "natural-born" [My mother would be in this category since both her parents were American citizens, albeit naturalized ones, at the time of her birth.]
Just trying to figure out all this stuff! :^) This is where I am at the moment....
If I'm right, then I can happily report that I am a natural-born and native-born American citizen! :^)
Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your wonderful insights!
Well that would be nice. Seriously.
Most would-be serious writers do not realize how very much a good copy editor helps. This one actually does. Just haven't found one yet.
Stupid avoidable mistakes can kill you.
A most astute insight, syc1959!
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.... [bold itals added: There are TWO criteria to be satisfied here, as you so astutely note syc1959.]Question: How can a minor tyke born on American soil to non-U.S.-citizen parents be "under the jurisdiction of the United States?" As a minor, the child is under the (natural law) jurisdiction of its parents — who owe their principal allegiance to a foreign nation/state and are therefore not themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It seems the Fourteenth Amendment, with its jus solis doctrine, has vastly complicated the citizenship issue! JMHO, FWIW.
Thank you so much for your great observation, syc1959!
At the moment, I'm wondering if and how Obama's dual citizenship at birth - as a result of his father's domicile - ended. Surely he is not still a citizen of the U.K. or else he would be paying taxes to them (visions of Al Capone's oversight.)
On this criterion, where was Stanley Ann Dunham's "domicile?" She seemed to find "domicile" wherever her third-world, Marxian-socialist husband of the time happened to be. And under international law as traditionally understood, "the domicile of the husband and father determines that of wife and children."
Tracing BHO's citizenship status through his mother seems fraught with difficulty, on legal minority, jurisdictional, and domicile grounds. On the other hand, there are potentially two fathers (natural and step) that clearly are not citizens of the United States: One a Kenyan (British citizen); the other an Indonesian (Indonesian citizen).
Whatta mess....
Whatta relief!!!! LOLOL!!!! There is "JUSTICE" in the world! (I.e., the world according to the IRS.)
The problem is you have to catch the anchor baby raking in the income before you can tax it. Not that anchor babies typically do much raking in of income in the first place. Rather more typically, they siphon income off from everybody else.
Arrrgggghhhhh!
This stuff will drive you crazy!
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.