On "Birthers," Heed "Radio Patriot," Not Glenn Beck

WEB Commentary ^ | January 6, 2009 | Michael J. Gaynor

[norge]

Watch Beck’s ratings drop sharply over the next few weeks.

You're kidding, right?

[Electric Graffiti]

The grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1 has nothing at all to do with the citizenship of the delegates’ parents.

But the natural born citizen requirement does.

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


"If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."-----Leo Donofrio.


Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?

[sushiman]

OK ...you lick his sneakers . Got it .

[norge]

I was born in Boston (no question about that) in 1936. I have a copy of the the COB, signed in 1969. It states the hospital I was born in, the doctor in attendance, and my mother and father’s names.

It does not include the fact that my father was born in Norway and was not a citizen at the time of my birth.

It does state that my mother was 17.

Question: Am I a natural born citizen?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I remember that.The reason was so that it wouldnt come back on them.They were anything but dumb and that is a fact.

[DaveTesla]

Jonh Bingham April 1868 :

“May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the
failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpation's of an apostate President, the fabric
of American empire fell and perished from the earth!…I
ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a
million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the
Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are
above the law…”

[Electric Graffiti]

Natural born citizen status only matters if you’re running for vpotus or potus.

“Question: Am I a natural born citizen?”

No.

[Spaulding]

Excellent summary. As you no doubt know there are volumes and volumes consistant with what you have explained. The Grotian Society Papers - 1972, the Alexander Porter Morse Treatise on Citzenship, the Joseph Story Papers, writings of Grotius, Pufendorf, Chief Justices Marshall and Waite.

I will mention that the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed by the 1795 Act, eliminating the extension of natural born citizenship to children of citizens born “across the seas”. Mario Apuzzo made a plausible conjecture that this act in 1790 was to extend the “grandfather clause” of Article II to the children of founders; quite a few of the founders spent much time in England and on the Continent. Their allegiance was recognized, but the authors knew the statute would not withstand a test of constitutionality. Today, it is what it was: “...born in the country of citizen parents”.

[norge]

Really!?

[sushiman]

The LEFT is praising Beck now . ‘Nuff said .

[WVPatriot]

Based on the following, if your father owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, then no you would not be a “natural born citizen” for the purpose of determining your eligibility to run for Vice President or President of the United States.

“Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

[Electric Graffiti]

Ok...I’ll make an exception in your case ;)

[jla]

Watch Beck’s ratings drop sharply over the next few weeks.

Will re-post at end of the month.

[Red Steel]

I’ve seen the Governor of the State of Hawaii personally certify that Obama was born there.

No you have not as Lingle has never said that publicly. You are confused with DoH director Fukino who said she saw the vital records that say Obama was born in Hawaii.

However, Hawaii has accepted statements from witnesses who say they were present when a baby was born in the state of Hawaii which doctors were not present or were not in the hospital delivery system. A system that could be easily fooled if the witness is not honest.

[Ramius]

If a Russian child is born in Hawaii, is that child eligible to become president? ... Just being born in Hawaii doesn’t make one eligible according to the founders use of the term ‘natural born citizen’.

Yes, under the meaning of "natural born citizen" that child born in the U.S. would indeed be eligible to become President. These different brands of citizenship didn't exist when they made these proclaimations. Curiously enough... there wasn't yet much at that point about "citizenship" documentation. Nobody then had passports.

[WVPatriot]

Are you just going to make a direct statement like that without documenting sources to support your statement?

[Ramius]

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. Am I wrong in some way?

[WVPatriot]

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

This decision was delivered after the 14th amendment was already in place.

[WVPatriot]

Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

[Swiss]

Lets say that Adolf Hitler was ineligible to become head of Germany because he never became a legal German citizen. In 1932 while he was running for office it would be the “Issue” if it came out. His political career would be over then and there.

By 1935 on the other hand there was plenty of other abuses to remove Hitler for such as imprisoning political opponents. By that point politically the citizenship issue would be a moot point. We are rapidly reaching the same point with Obama. He has been in a year, anything past two years and the majority of the public will say so what if he was ineligible. The courts, individual states, etc has punted the BC issue down the field. You can blame Glenn Beck or others but really the ones who should take up the issue refuse to do so (Supreme Court, State Governors, etc).

Now if in 1945 there was people who wanted Hitler arrested because of the citizenship issue of 1933 and tried because of it instead of starting WWII and killing the Jews I would deem them crazy.