Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Mr. Limbaugh,
You have FAILED to defend the Constitution in the important matter of Obama's very questionable natural born status! On those rare occasions that you have mentioned the topic ( less than 5 total minutes) you have treated it like a joke. I am mystified that you have done this.
The only consequence, Mr. Limbaugh, for directing attention to Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen would have been a little ridicule from the mainstream Marxist media. If you fail to defend the Constitution in time of relative peace and security, only a FOOL would expect you to defend the Constitution in the face of real tyranny, tanks in the streets, and cattle cars filled to the brim? Only a fool would expect you to do what is right and brave.
Personally, I will never fully trust you and your opinions again. Some things are deal breakers. That you have failed to cover the important question of having a constitutionally eligible president is a deal breaker for me.
By the way, LTC Lakin is facing court martial for having dared Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. LTC Lakin is brave and honorable man. Hopefully, you, Mr. Limbaugh, you will have one thousandth of the courage of this military officer, and you will do what is right. You will give LTC Lakin the generous time on your program that his legal case deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh, that little itty bitty phrase in the Constitution about having a natural born citizen for a president is **not** a JOKE!
Respectfully,
Wintertime
Based on your post, why would the Framers use “natural born citizen” rather than ‘natural citizen’, if they were following Vattel?
Natural born citizen is an odd phrasing, for nothing is more natural than birth. So why add “born” to Vattel, if there were following Vattel? Furthermore, they knew - without any doubt - the common law phrase “natural born subject”, and would know adding ‘born’ would confuse the issue - IF they were following Vattel.
Had they required the candidate to be a ‘native citizen’ or a ‘natural citizen’ or an ‘indigenous citizen’, then you would have a case. But “natural born citizen” is what they wrote.
In the end, what matters is what the Supreme Court has said, and they said it is common law that the Constitution followed, not Vattel. They made the case in WKA, and no one has challenged it since.
“Except that nothing in the decision ever says that natural born citizen is the American version of natural born subject. “
What they wrote:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution...
...The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . .
The full opinion goes in to much more detail, but no one reading it can doubt but that the Supreme Court has already decided that NBC = NBS, and the citizenship of the parents irrelevant to NBC as it is to NBS.
Nice of you to provide such easy pickings.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” Obama ADMITS his citizenship was governed under British law. There’s no legal documentation that puts him within the allegiance of the United States. The other part of this you don’t seem to want to admit, is that case was acknowledging that persons born in the United States were either English or American depending on how they chose their allegiance. Their children would naturally follow the conditions of their parents.
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:” The Supreme Court of North Carolina doesn’t trump the Minor decision and definition. Second, this decision undermines your claim. “... all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State ...” We’re not arguing over who are born citizens of the State, but since this ONLY applies to free persons, we immediately see that this DOES NOT incorporate the so-called English common law definition of natural born subjects, which is supposedly EVERYBODY born in the country regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
The Lynch v. Clark ruling is a lower court ruling in New York. The justice does a fairly comprehensive job of reviewing what he calls public law as opposed to common law. He cites Vattel and several other cases. He acknowledges, despite his own insistance that the common law was the rule in all states, a law in Virgina that says “all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.” He also says, “The provisions of naturalization laws enacted by Congress, are urged as decisive, that children born here, of alien parents were not citizens.” The judge disagrees, but cites no specific support for why this isn’t true, other than his personal opinion.
None of these citations provide a specific Supreme Court conclusion that natural born subject = natural born citizen ... and none of it overturns the definition provided by Minor. The summary of the case simply says Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States ... a constitutionally distinct and separate term from natural born citizen.
Natural Born citizenship has no relevance in American law except as a eligibility requirement for the Office of t President.
That KWA was not declared a NBC is not surprizing because he isn’t, but that is irrelevant to his whole case.
Although there has never been a case decided in the USSC about the elegibility requirements for POTUS, several cases have made oblique references to the meaning of the term.
Easy bet U’ll freepmail you where to send the money!
“I will bet you $100 donation to FREE Republic in the others name (with whatever honor and privileges that bestows) that there will be no ruling saying 0bama is not a natural born citizen by any US court for the rest of 0bamas term, or (GOD FORFEND!) he wins reelection, for the remainder.
No bet on that because I have no faith in the foritude of those wearing judicial robes to even entertain a brief presented to them.....
I’ll bet on the outcome of a USSC case defining just what NBC means as applied to the eligibility requirements for POTUS. At any time now or in the future....
You really didn’t expect me to place a bet on Judicial Courage did you? LOLOLOLOL
I don't recall if he has called those of us who do want it discussed are loons as other talking heads have.
I'm in the small group that doesn't even think Obama is his birth father, but Frank Marshall Davis will be the name that appears on the real birth certificate.
So you are too chicken for a real bet?
So in other words, you admit that this is all (functionally)a moot point and that 0bama will be removed from office via the ballot box as I maintain, and not EVER through any court decision saying that to be a NBC of the USA you must be born in country to two citizen parents.
So you have admitted the futility of your position. What happened to “I win you lose LOLLOLOLOLOLOL!”?
I laugh at your expense!
When the Supreme Court cites a lower court case approvingly, and uses it to advance their argument, the lower court ruling then states what the Supreme Court believes.
“There’s no legal documentation that puts him within the allegiance of the United States. “
If you could read, you would know that is a false statement. Allegiance did not require one to be a citizen, but merely to live in amity with the government - as they very clearly state in WKA. If he was born in the USA from parents present legally in the USA, he qualifies.
There was no attempt to define NBC in Minor. Minor is quoted in WKA as saying the meaning is found in common law...so Minor contradicts your unfounded belief that Vattel ruled.
From MInor:
“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government...” Minor supports the idea that subject and citizen refer to the same concept under differing governments.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Note that Minor provides for TWO forms of citizenship - by birth, or by naturalization. It envisions no other. If you are not a citizen by birth, you need to be naturalized.
Minor goes on:
“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.”
Again, one is either a citizen or an alien. In Minor, they did not attempt to resolve any doubts about the effect of having alien parents - if they had, there would have been no need for WKA, since the issue would already have been decided.
In WKA, the Court made its decision, using a two prong argument. WKA was a citizen because A) he qualified as a NBC, and B) he qualified under the 14th Amendment. No court since then has rejected that decision.
To suggest WKA didn’t overturn Minor is to assume Minor addressed the issue of the status of someone born in the USA of alien parents. That is obviously incorrect. If they had, there would have been no case involving WKA.
The WKA ruling went beyond Minor, and left no doubt in the minds of any legal authority, which is why no legal authority (someone with standing) has challenged Obama based on his father. And since no legal authority has doubts, you cannot get in the door of the court...because your case is so worthless that the courts won’t even consider it.
You would understand why if you could read. Birthers who close their eyes to Supreme Court decisions cannot complain when they then lose every case.
Look up the word, “dense” in the dictionary.
Yes, it does apply to guys like you.
I don’t think that whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to serve as president is a question of a vast conspiracy; rather, I think it is a matter that no one — Republican, Democrat, judge, “journalist” ... no one of any stature — wants to go down in history as the one who caused the first “black” (negro, mulatto, minority, whatever) president to be removed from office. Ain’t gonna happen.
We don't know if the Supreme Court cites cases 'approvingly.' That term is not included in either Minor or WKA. There was certainly stronger dicta that could have been pulled from Lynch v. Clark to make the point you pretend WKA made, but never did.
If you could read, you would know that is a false statement. Allegiance did not require one to be a citizen, but merely to live in amity with the government - as they very clearly state in WKA. If he was born in the USA from parents present legally in the USA, he qualifies.
You're making my argument for me by having to qualify Obama's allegiance by saying "IF he was born in the USA." Thanks.
There was no attempt to define NBC in Minor. Minor is quoted in WKA as saying the meaning is found in common law...so Minor contradicts your unfounded belief that Vattel ruled.
So you think that saying a meaning for a term is NOT an attempt to define it?? I've read some spin, but that's retarded. And Minor did use Vattel's definitinon. I've underlined the clauses of the two verbatim definitions where they match. Read and learn. Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Minor: "... 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 ..." That's enough to be considered plagiarism.
"The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government."
Your quote from Minor sounds like more recitation of Vattel. "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country." "A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under the head of his private property; ... " Vattel also explains how these terms are dependent on the country.
Minor supports the idea that subject and citizen refer to the same concept under differing governments.
However it doesn't say that the terms are identical nor does it say that natural born subjects = natural born citizens. For the latter, Minor gave a very specific definition, or in your nomenclature, a very specific meaning.
Note that Minor provides for TWO forms of citizenship - by birth, or by naturalization. It envisions no other. If you are not a citizen by birth, you need to be naturalized.
Immediately following this section, Minor says, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." If what you believed is true, then the easiest thing they could have said was that all persons born in the country are citizens at birth with no need for naturalization. They don't. Instead they acknowledge that you need to be born of citizen parents and that there were doubts about being born in the country of noncitizen parents. There's no need to make a distinction if birth alone is sufficient for all born in the country to become citizens, especially in light of the recent ratification of the 14th amendment. Instead they maintain that only one definition was used by the framers and that was the only definition for which there is no doubt.
Again, one is either a citizen or an alien. In Minor, they did not attempt to resolve any doubts about the effect of having alien parents - if they had, there would have been no need for WKA, since the issue would already have been decided.
WKA doesn't resolve those doubts. It nevers disputes Minor's definition nor does it every say that those born in the country 'without reference to the citizenship of the parents' are natural born citizens. Further, if the 14th amendment defined or redefined natural born citizenship, the Supreme Court missed TWO huge opportunities to say so. Instead, Minor says that definition is extraconstitutional and WKA cites that definition 'approvingly.' So according to YOUR standard, this is what the court believes: all children born in the country of parents who are its citizens = NBC.
In WKA, the Court made its decision, using a two prong argument. WKA was a citizen because A) he qualified as a NBC, and B) he qualified under the 14th Amendment. No court since then has rejected that decision.
The court never made argument A. This is your delusional fantasy. The closest you have ever come to supporting this nonsense is through a citation that says the terms citizen and subject are analagous. That's not sufficient nor accurate to say that WKA argued that WKA was a natural born citizen. The ONLY term the court used in reference to the plaintiff was 'citizen of the United States.'
The WKA ruling went beyond Minor, and left no doubt in the minds of any legal authority, which is why no legal authority (someone with standing) has challenged Obama based on his father.
It's true the courts have not granted anyone standing, but that has nothing to do with the WKA ruling. You're connecting apples and highways.
You would understand why if you could read. Birthers who close their eyes to Supreme Court decisions cannot complain when they then lose every case.
Your true colors show here. You've argued more successfully for my position than your, so in the final analysis, you resort to petty and ignorant insults to cover for your own rhetorical deficienies. Sorry, but that's a fail.
The integrity of our country and constitution suffers as a result.
you also have the centuries old maxim that any immigrant’s son (or daughter) can grow up to be president. The oft cited treaty in this debate pre-dates modern immigration and election law.
This is right in there with the return to gold standard, federal reserve is illegal, or sovereign citizen crowd.
Agree.
Once BO leaves office, however, there will be a thorough public discussion and a race by *renowned* journalists to publish blockbuster exposes.
WRT Rush - IMHO he may be a closet birther but does not have access to irrefutable evidence and will not risk his reputation at this point. BUT once BO becomes a former POTUS - Rush’s career will be sustained & enhanced by bringing up all the clues that were ignored by the Congress and the media with special reference to his, Rush’s *prescience* in the matter.
LOLOLOL Nice try on turning lemons into lemonade! LOLOLOLOL
“So in other words you back out of any bet with a definite time frame”
Yes, and thats not backing out. That’s rejecting an low percentage wager.....
You’re trying to change the whole terms of the bet.
By injecting judicial review before the end of Obama’s term of Office (a time constraint) you changed the bet from right/wrong eligible/ineligible to one of looking under the black robes for B@!!s.
lolololol..... and I’m not going on that hunt with you! I know what you’ll find.....nothing of any substance!
Even in view of the fact there are now 3 females on the court, I know for certain that metaphorical cojones are in short to non-existant supply within the judicial branch, especially in the USSC.
As I said in my previous post “You really don’t expect me to bet on Judicial Courage do you?” Let’s get back to the meat of the issue.....Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve as President or not?
Spin it whichever way you want....the fact is Obama is ineligible under the Constitution to hold the office he was elected to serve in....Constitution or not, judicial cowardice or not.
Despite your unsupportable/mislaid belief in Obama eligibility, the only real issue before the American public is what are we going to do about our error in installing Obama as President? To Dems, and apparently people like you, there is no issue at all......sigh.....hows sand feel like when wraped around your ears?
Bet? Yeah, on the origional terms and conditions....It’ll be a long wait for the results. 2 years at the inside to never on the outside.....
Be patient grasshopper! The Truth will eventually come out! It always does......
I believe that Obama will be turned out in 2012, and if re-elected, someone in the Congress will object, forcing Obama to withdraw or be forced to defend the indefenseable in court.
As an alternate scenario, I believe that Obama will not run for re-election (placing him squarely in the ranks of failed Preidencies by that simple act alone) and, after the fact, a court case will be allowed to rise up the system to the USSC Court who will re-affirm the constitutional intent and definition of NBC as born of the soil to 2 citizens.....negating Obama’s presidency in toto......
“Either way they never say Kim Wong Ark isn’t a natural born citizen.”
At least now I know how your mind works (or doesn’t)....lololol
The KWA case revolved around the issue of, since KWA wasn’t a NBC (something not at issue in the case), could he be a citizen at all?
The court said that yes there are citizens other than NBC. Their justification for this ruling was the 14th amendment.
It’s not that hard to understand now.... is it?
Assuming you mean other than NBC and naturalized, because of COURSE there are citizens other than those who are natural born, there are those who are “naturalized” - WHERE did the court say this?
I know you argue by assertion rather than citation, but really! Do you have ANY substantiation for this?
Nowhere do they say that he is NOT a natural born citizen, they say that according to the principle he would be a “natural born subject” and therefore “just as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens.
Way to cowardly back out of a bet with an actual time frame! So much for ‘you lose and I win’; looks like you will be waiting a long long long time before you “win” anything. Myself I just have to wait until November before we “win” at the ballot box.
But way to go puffing yourself up, then deflating in cowardice; while admitting that you have ZERO confidence that this birther stuff will EVER do ANYTHING towards getting 0bambam removed from office.
... and, in conjunction with the overt attempt to convert our republic to a socialist state, perhaps when this occurs our Constitution will be accorded a rebirth of respect.
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.