Posted on 04/30/2010 2:25:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
1. A “natural born” citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that’s two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) — think Ronald Reagan — in this case, parentage is important AND birthplace is important.
2. A citizen “by statute” is any person born of US citizen parent(s) outside the United States — think John McCain — in this case, parentage is important AND birthplace is not important.
3. A “native born” citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland — think Barack Obama — parentage not important AND birthplace important — a.
4. Parentage not important AND birthplace not important — a “naturalized” citizen is a citizen as the result of a process — think Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Lot’s of good research here:
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, contends that in defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789),” a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,’’ Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”
more here:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
Only because of the difference between the meaning of citizen and the meaning of subject. A natural-born subject is a subject born to two persons who are subjects. Go look it up in an OED.
ML/NJ
So do I.....Guess that’s why it took 3 stabs at it, over a few days, to get it done....Roberts kept choking on the words, don’t blame him at all........LOLOLOLOL
Play chess, not checkers.....”
“Yes, but with the exception of Arthur, all of them had parents that had been naturalized (ie became citizens) before the birth of their son, thereby meeting the NBC requirement for their son’s NBC status... You’ll note that although Arthur’s Irish born father eventualy was naturalized, it was not until Arthur was 14 years old..... This was the reason Arthur went to great lengths to hide/destroy documentation of his birth.... He was not an NBC..... the same as Obama and for the same reason...Obama is not a NBC).”
Justice Thomas was being coy with his double entandre answer in an informal setting. I’m sure that is why the thrust of it went over your head.....everyone else in the room got a laugh out of it though.....LOLOLOLOLOL ( note Justice Thomas did not have a mouse in his pocket....”we” meaning the judiciary.)
Schools out! Time for you to go to bed. Wash your hands and face....brush your teeth first....”
It was twice not three times and yeah, Roberts was nervous time number one swearing in his first President. Hopefully he’ll have many more presidents to swear in.
I think that question is moot at this point.....and I’m sure that Roberts will have no problem swearing in Gov. Palin in 2013 whatsoever...... (sorry, I couldn’t resist the plug)
No, I do not believe that “the Obama nullification team” is filing intentionally flawed suits. It is easy enough to track the background of any defendant in any lawsuit to see if they had a history of supporting Obama or liberal causes in the past.
You seem to take issue with my term “Obama nullification team” The reason I’ve coined that term is.....
While attending townhall meetings held by my local US Representative last summer, I observed that they were always attended by well dressed, well spoken people, with camera friendly looks, from Obama’s “Outreach for America.”
In one meeting I attended on Healthcare, the OforA
spokeslady, speaking to the local TV cameras, stated that she was aghast at all the racist comments, and anger directed at Obama during the Townhall....Funny, there was not one sign with obama’s name on it, except a couple opposing “Obamacare,” and no one had even mentioned Obama during the discussion in any way. Additionally, the attendees, with the exception of the supporters of the HCR Bill, about 150 of the 2300+ attendees, were calm, well reasoned, and well spoken (it’s a fairly wealthy district). ......
You may scoff at the term I used, but from my limited, and local experience, I can say that there is a concerted, well planned and executed, effort on part of Obama, and his supporters, to sell him and his agenda....up to and including his eligibility to be President.
My great-grandparents were, 6 of 8, naturalized American citizens, but my grandparents 4 of 4, were born in the US, to American (naturalized) citizens ...... they were NBCs......as were my parents..... as am I......as are my children.....as are their children....it’s not that hard of a requirement to fulfill.....yet one that Obama fails......
You’re making my point that the Courts will not Cert. any case other than one that is flawless in it’s brief, because of the important Constitutional questions the descision will address/answer......
For a parallel example, look how many suits on the basic question of what the 2nd Amendments actually means, or who it applies to, were not granted Cert, until “Heller”, and at the Appeals level the 5th Circuit’s well researched decision in “Emerson.” ( The 9th Circuit, later made a highly flawed decision in Siliveira v Lockyer that is in conflict with the 5ths decision and Heller, and I expect it to be overturned someday.... typical for the 9th Circus.).
Because of all the failures at getting a Writ of Cert. for 2nd Amendment cases are you suggesting that all 2nd Amendment cases are frivilous? Of course you’re not....disputing your own point about Obama.........
—————————————————————————————— You can try to spin Justice Thomas’ words any way you want. The question was about whether a Puerto Rico-born Congressman can ever be president and the context was possible statehood for Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rican Statehood is a matter of the Puerto Ricans themselves voting for it..... so far they have rejected it themselves....and, in any event, is beyond the pervue of the USSC..I don’t see your point?
What Justice Thomas suggested, in response to the Congressman’s question about his eligibilty to run for President, was to say....we’re avoiding answering that question (about the reuirement of Presidential eligibilty), why don’t you try for the Supreme Court.... you meet the requirements for that......... That’s not spin....read the exact quotes again.
You sure do like that flawed descision by a back water State Appeals Court don’t you? It crops up frequently in your posts... (My apologies to the Hoosiers out there, we have the same, and sometimes worse problem with courts in my state).
There is a reason that there are State Supreme Courts, Federal Appeals Courts, and a US Supreme Court. Ankeny is a prime example......
Actually the main thrust of the original Indiana Superior Court (municipal/county?) case was to try and backdoor the Obama eligibility question by questioning the Governors Certification the Electors to the Electoral College... not square on point to begin with, and even if it reaches the Federal level, much less the US Supreme Court, I doubt that it will be heard, or issued a Writ of Cert..... Too flawed a brief to be taken seriously in a question of Constitutional import....
BTW... WAK revolved around the question of birthright citizenship using the 14th Amend. for argument, (Wong was trying to get around draconian immigration laws limiting Chinese immigration/naturization) and the Court ruled in his favor, saying that he was a citizen, will all rights of citizenship as if he had been a NBC.
Two points.....1) They did not declare him a NBC as the IAC stated they did, they just said he had the same rights as if he was a NBC, and 2) There is no right to be President, you must meet the Constitutional Requirements of the Office....like I said a flawed decision, not something I’d want to hang hang my hat on.....
The IAC rendered a flawed decision, based on a flawed reading of WAK.... doubtful that Ankeny will ever be used as a citation in any other court decision/brief, or anywhere else for that matter......save by you in a FR post.....
ANY and I repeat ANY district attorney, state Attorney General or US Attorney in the nation could initiate a grand jury investigation (remember the Whitewater, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky Grand Jury investigations?).
I’m afraid a State Attorney General would lack “standing,” ditto any state district attorney, Obama’s Presidency is a matter of Federal, rather than State Law........ Interesting idea though......I’d like the whole Donk Party be charged as a RICO enterprise.......LOLOLOLOL
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
i don’t have time to respond in depth, busy day at work. I will simply remind you that an Attorney General named Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel named Ken Starr to investigate Whitewater, the Vince Foster suicide, Filegate, the Paula Jones’ lawsuit deposition of Bill Clinton and ultimately to file the report that resulted in the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.
And an Attorney General named John Ashcroft appointed a special counsel named Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate the blown CIA cover of Valerie Plame which resulted in the Conviction of Scooter Libby.
There are times when so much political pressure is on an administration that they have to appoint a special counsel or a special prosecutor who is widely perceived as neutral or from the opposition.
Patrick J.Fitzgerald is still US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois even though he is a Bush appointee due to the fact that Obama can’t remove him (politically) until the Blagojevich trial has concluded.
obumpa
“There are times when so much political pressure is on an administration that they have to appoint a special counsel or a special prosecutor who is widely perceived as neutral or from the opposition.”
The money line from you.......
Sorry, I don’t see either Reid or Pelosi as being willing to pressure Eric Holder in this matter....You seem to think that they will/would......You crack me up James.....LOLOLOLOLOL....maybe next January if November goes well...... if, if, if.......
C’mon man we’re dealing with A very Socialist Obama and a radical (at best) Congress.......
Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with, even then he escaped getting convicted and removed from office.......
Bush, as contrasted to Obama, is a moral, and principled man. You don’t really expect Obama to act out of morals/principles do you? Besides Bush and his Administration had nothing to fear......as opposed to Obama.....LOLOLOL
Political pressure dosen’t work with Obama, or the Donks.........They’ll ram it down our throats as long as they can get away with it.....meaning till we crush them, and kick them out of power.....
The political pressure to appoint a Special Counsel comes from the OPPOSITION party not the party in power.
Do you really think that Richard Nixon would have resigned after firing Independent Counsel Archibald Cox in the “Friday Night Massacre” without major pressure from the Democrats?
Was Bill Clinton a “moral man” when he had to let Janet Reno (”a moral woman????”) appoint Judge Ken Starr as Special Counsel?
Do you really think that the Bush administration WANTED a leftist like Valerie Plame to be able to bring down Scooter Libby via the appointment of an independent counsel?
Unfortunately the Republican Party has not applied ANY political pressure to Obama on this issue. The House Republicans invited Barack Hussein Obama to speak at their winter congressional retreat and they asked not one single question of him about his eligibility to be President.
Have you noticed that Alan Keyes is the only name conservative to have filed suit regarding Obama’s eligibility?
I’m glad to see that you are getting so much humor out of this issue! :-)
“The political pressure to appoint a Special Counsel comes from the OPPOSITION party not the party in power.
Do you really think that Richard Nixon would have resigned after firing Independent Counsel Archibald Cox in the “Friday Night Massacre” without major pressure from the Democrats?”
The Democrats held the Majorities in both the House and the Senate when Nixon was President.......The Democrats had the power....
“Was Bill Clinton a “moral man” when he had to let Janet Reno (”a moral woman????”) appoint Judge Ken Starr as Special Counsel?”
I never argued that either Clinton or Reno were moral, only Bush.......See above....The Republicans held the majority in both the House and the Senate.....they held the power.....The Clintons/Dems waged a major campaign to discredit Kenneth Starr.....
“Unfortunately the Republican Party has not applied ANY political pressure to Obama on this issue”
The Republicans do not have a majority in neither the House nor the Senate.....in fact the Democrats have a super majority in both houses of congress....The Dems have the power....The Republicans do not have the power.....
“Have you noticed that Alan Keyes is the only name conservative to have filed suit regarding Obama’s eligibility?”
....and he uses Orly Taitz as his attorney, someone you, and others, have a very low opinion of......seems he isn’t mounting a very serious challenge is he? “Alan Keyes is a name Conservative”??????
“I’m glad to see that you are getting so much humor out of this issue! :-)”
LOLOLOLOL..... The humor only lies in your take of it......LOLOLOLOLOL
It all depends on the father!
Our Undocumented White House Resident
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22782
“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.”
This quote is taken directly from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations, which has been a world recognized and time honored reference guide to understanding “natural law,” and the natural birthrights of national citizenship recognized by all civilized nations for more than two-hundred and fifty years.
Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert who lived from 1714 – 1767, and whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations was released in 1758; in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns.
Vattel’s book established many time honored standards of natural law recognized the world over and it is an historical reference regarding the Constitutional eligibility requirement for the offices of President and Vice President, Natural Born Citizen, found in Article II – Section I – Clause V.
It is not the Congress who appoints a special counsel. It is the Attorney General of the administration in power. Therefore which party has a majority in Congress is irrelevant.
What the opposing party can do is continually call for a special counsel to be appointed until the pressure is so hot that the administration has to appooint the special counsel to relieve the political pressure that they are under.
Have you heard any Republican member of Congress or any official of the Repubican Party call for a Special Counsel to be appointed to look into Obama’s eligibility?
I am well aware of Emmerick Vittal, and his work “Law of Nations,” even to the fact that Thomas Jefferson taught a course based upon the text at William and Mary college....the course was part of the curriculum until the later 1800’s......
In Vittal’s day, way before the advent of womens sufferage and separate citizenship scenarios, the Wife’s citizenship automatically followed that of the Husband......making the father’s citizenship the most relevant factor in determing NBC.....
Law of Nations remains the same in relation to Article II, Section I, Clause V , and still holds true.....”Born in country to two citizen parents”....
Obama, because of his foreign citizen father, does not, nor could he ever, be eligible to be US President.....
Thanks.....
Are you following this conversation?
“It is not the Congress who appoints a special counsel. It is the Attorney General of the administration in power.”
Duh!
First the President is co-equal with Congress.....
Are you seriously expecting Eric Holder to appoint a Special Council to investigate Obama’s eligibility, especially since the Democrats hold a supermajority in Congress?.... OK....uh
Second is that the current Republican members of Congress have very little power....they were even shut out of the deliberations on HCR.....yet you think that they can exert pressure so hot that the AG will appoint a Special Council.....Oh..ah... OK!......
The point of the Nixon, and Clinton Special Councils, was that the Congress was held by an insistant opposition party, that forced the AG’s hand.......something you apparently want to ignore.....
In Bush’s case, with a Republican held congress, I believe it was his principals/morality, (and bolstered bt the Knowledge of his innocense) that allowed him to respond to calls by the left, and their MSM enablers, and appoint a SC without fear of an adverse finding.....
“Have you heard any Republican member of Congress or any official of the Repubican Party call for a Special Counsel to be appointed to look into Obama’s eligibility?”
No I haven’t, but there are many others that have questioned Obama’s eligibility (including me).....and they have been pillored as nut cases by the media.....pols are smarter than to hold themselves out to that situation.....
Question do you think that the MSM would report such a call as anything other than a partisan attack by desparate right wingnuts .....(Heck even you have called them “aluminum foil hat wearers”)?
Maybe the answer to that question is that the Politicians are reluctant to hold themselves out to media ridicule (I ain’t holding my breath waiting for this type of a political solution anyway....are you?), and are waiting for results of the 2010 elections to make themselves heard on this issue (if ever).......if more and more people discuss the issue, and if the political landscape changes to our side in 2011, and if the MSM moderates its blind support of Obama, we may see some pols grow a pair....a whole lot of ifs.......so again..... I ain’t holding my breath.....
The fact that Janet Reno appointed Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton still seems appropos to me as an historical precedent.
The Democrats don’t have a “super-majority” in Congress. Ever heard of Scott Brown of Massachusetts?
When US Attorney (and Bush appointee) Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, it took the Democrat-controlled legislature in Illinois about one month to impeach Blagojevick and remove him from office to minimize the political damage to the rest of the Illinois Democrats. Obama and Holder could have replaced Fitzgerald with a Democrat appointee, but they haven’t.
Remember that none of the issues that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton began as “federal” issues. If there were to be a Grand Jury investigation in any of the 50 states concerning Obama’s eligibility, he could be forced to testify under oath. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice concerning his Paula Jones sexual harrassment Grand Jury deposition.
“The fact that Janet Reno”....under pressure from the Republican Congress..... “appointed Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton still seems appropos to me as an historical precedent.
There fixed it for you......and exactly my original point...
“The Democrats don’t have a “super-majority” in Congress. Ever heard of Scott Brown of Massachusetts?”
Ever hear of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Graham, McCain, et al....and thats just the Senate....I notice you didn’t mention the House where there is an overwhelming Democrat super majority...... No matter how you try and spin it, the Democrats had, and still effectively have, a supermajority in the Congress (last I heard Brown was voting with the Dems on cloture votes...oops)....interesting, but the point was that the power lies with the Democrats, NOT with the Republicans in Congress. One vote preserving the filibuster via cloture does not change that. They still have 59 out of 100 votes in the Senate......Futhermore the Democrats have no impetus to persue the issue of Obama’s eligibility now do they?......Pay attention now.....and try to follow the discussion....
Patrick Fitzgerald?......huh? What has he got to do with it?
PF has retained his position as DUSA because of his high profile reputation for nonpartisan investigation/prosecution ..... What does that have to do with the current discussion?
I’m sure Obama is more than happy to have Fitzgerald prosecute any and all, (remember Obama has thrown Blogo under the bus) except Obama himself ......No worries there, Fitzgerald has no authority in DC..... his District is Illinois, and he can’t just go wandering afield where ever he feels like ........ sigh....
“If there were to be a Grand Jury investigation in any of the 50 states concerning Obama’s eligibility, he could be forced to testify under oath..”
Oh boy! another big IF.....
What State Laws has Obama violated? State Grand Juries have no jurisdiction over Federal matters....I don’t see your point at all.....reaching for straws again?
Maybe they should go after the state SoS for putting Obama on the ballot....I think they’ve tried that.....Your hero Alan Keyes tried it in California using Orly Taitz.....
“Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice concerning his Paula Jones sexual harrassment Grand Jury deposition.”
And the Senate failed to convict and remove him, so your point is?
Do you think that IF a State Grand Jury indicted, then the DA prosecuted, tried, and convicted Obama in state court for running in their state for US President (sic), the Democratic House would then Impeached him for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, and the Democrat US Senate would then convict and remove him from Office.....
James, you’re more fun than Comedy Central......
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.