Posted on 10/12/2010 10:42:48 AM PDT by Bridgetteb
“Looking Back at History” Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the Late 1800′s
The definition of Natural Born Citizen and the presidential eligibility issue were researched in the late 1800's. Multiple newspaper articles are presented to show how constitutionalists and scholars in the 19th century addressed the issues by responding to citizen's questions. Copies of articles are shown.
The first article below asks: If a person with American parents is born in a foreign country would he be eligible to the presidency? Note the answer states “parents” not the singular word “parent.”
May 27, 1888 Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to Be President?
continued ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wtpotus.wordpress.com ...
More vindictive blather in place of thought.
YOUR interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t count for squat. Nor, for that matter, does the interpretation of a newspaper.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation DOES matter, and it is settled law that someone born in the USA is naturally a born citizen.
In matters of the Law, the Supreme Court DOES have the last say, and the large majority of people accept that. “We The People” is your pretense that you speak for the majority will of the USA - in spite of the fact that Obama’s father’s foreignness was well known when a comfortable majority of the US voted for him.
“By that idiot’s logic you also say that the Constitution says a negro is not a full human entitled to basic human rights because the of Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a defective interpretation of the Constitution.”
Ever hear of the 14th Amendment? Why was it written? Do you know what an Amendment does?
You cite a ruling from a STATE court as the last word on this issue? And here I thought the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the Constitution. Now that you’ve set us straight—that it’s actually the Indiana appeals court that determines what the Constitution means—I’ll have to rethink everything.
jamese777 said, “Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama were permanently domiciled in Honolulu at the time of their son’s birth at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961 and when two birth announcements appeared in the local Honolulu newspapers on the following Sunday and Monday, August 13th and 14th, 1961.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents eventually returned to China and Barack Obama’s fathr eventually returned to Africa. That has no bearing on the citizenship status of the child.”
Oh, James. Where to begin? Really, I must wonder what planet you live on.
Who exactly WERE Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama? Was the “son” that was announced the person who now sits as POTUS?
If this father in the announcement is the father who the POTUS wrote about in his fictional autobiography, then Barack Hussein Obama (the elder) was NOT permanently domicled in the USA. In fact, contemporaneous city directories prove that he wasn’t even domiciled at the address listed in those announcements. Barack Hussein Obama (the elder) was here on a student visa. That’s a temporary visa. NOT in any way considered a resident of the US, much less a permanent one. As for his wife, IF she is the person known as Stanley Ann Dunham, that person spent most of her adult life overseas. In Indonesia, Pakistan, Kenya, elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
The citizenship status of Barack Obama (POTUS) has already been determined and admitted: British subject at birth.
Citizen at birth is not equal to natural born citizen.
It is seriously misinterpreted law that anyone born in the US (which is itself a contested status in re Steven Dunham) is “naturally born a citizen”, if you quoted the one Justices side-note in a decision properly.
The Supreme Court has been overruled again and again by the Executive, by the States and by the People. And also by itself. Marbury is not settled law, it is in reality a moot decision. Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.
Why indeed was the 14th written? Why the TENTH?
*YOUR* INITIAL VINDICTIVE BLATHER WAS THAT I had not read the constitution. That was an assertion idiotic. Of course I have! But to you, like any overreaching Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean.
This is an excerpt from one article cited at WTPOTUS blog:
In the Act of March 26, 1790, it was provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;“ but this was coupled with the provision that “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States,” showing that the phrase “considered as natural born citizens” meant merely” to be treated as such because of this law.”
Great exception was taken to the language as misleading, and on January 25, 1795, this was repealed in express terms and a new act adopted, which read, “Shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” thus making the proviso forbidding the privilege to the children of citizens who had not resided here consistent with it. For if a child of an American citizen born abroad is without any legislation a natural born citizen, then no provision of statute could deprive him of that birth-right as long as he is innocent of crime.”
Enough has been brought forward to safely guide the reflective reader. We may regret that Mr. Evarts did not suggest some points or references but he has, doubtless, been over the ground to his own satisfaction. The Herald assumes to be oracular without affording any grounds for the faith. Do adhere to our former answers to the question. — that the child of an American citizen, born abroad, without regard to the station of his father, is not eligible to the Presidency of the United States, because he is not “a natural born citizen, but merely a citizen made so by the law. We close by stating that Paschal, and all other high authorities, are clear that only a citizen born in the allegiance of the United States, i.e., either on its soil, or on the high seas under its flag, is a natural born citizen.”
************************
So the 1790 law was modified in 1795 to state that these children were common citizens NOT natural born citizens.
In the spirit of truthful and respectful debate, it would behoove everyone not to cite laws or rulings that have been fundamentally modified or overturned, without also citing the rest of the story.
“Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.”
No, John Brown did NOT correct the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, it was settled by amending the Constitution. Feel free to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring the President to have two citizen parents.
However, in WKA, the Court made a powerful argument about what the original intent of the Founders was - that the common law term “natural born subject” provided several hundred years of precedence and was a well established legal phrase, which the Founders adjusted for a Republic and inserted into the Constitution as “Natural Born Citizen”.
As such, having alien parents is no bar to becoming President of the US, provided you are born in the USA. That WAS the Founder’s intent, unless they were stupid in picking their terms. Not Vattel, but the normal language of the law of the day provides the key to understanding it.
The power of WKA’s dicta is based on the power of the reasoning about what the Founder’s intended.
When you pretend it was established law that two citizen parents were required, you ignore history, the law and the Constitution, which includes the 14th Amendment.
No Amendment settled what Scott left to hang. That’s why after the 14th (which never meant in regard birth in the US that citizenship automatically followed by law of man or of nature) that the blood continued to be spilled.
When a head court makes a foolish and wrong decision, and being men not gods, they do, they did, they will, at times the decision is so dangerously flawed that only redemption is in blood and destruction. So was Scott.
It is to the people, “in the Course of Human Events becoming necessary,” to correct such wrong decisions. Rarely is such correction as simple as a magic law or constitutional amendment.
There's nothing in the decision that says any such thing. You're connecting dots that WKA CAREFULLY avoided connecting.
jamese777 said, “Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama were permanently domiciled in Honolulu at the time of their son’s birth at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961 and when two birth announcements appeared in the local Honolulu newspapers on the following Sunday and Monday, August 13th and 14th, 1961.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents eventually returned to China and Barack Obama’s fathr eventually returned to Africa. That has no bearing on the citizenship status of the child.”
Oh, James. Where to begin? Really, I must wonder what planet you live on.
Who exactly WERE Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama? Was the “son” that was announced the person who now sits as POTUS?
If this father in the announcement is the father who the POTUS wrote about in his fictional autobiography, then Barack Hussein Obama (the elder) was NOT permanently domicled in the USA. In fact, contemporaneous city directories prove that he wasn’t even domiciled at the address listed in those announcements. Barack Hussein Obama (the elder) was here on a student visa. That’s a temporary visa. NOT in any way considered a resident of the US, much less a permanent one. As for his wife, IF she is the person known as Stanley Ann Dunham, that person spent most of her adult life overseas. In Indonesia, Pakistan, Kenya, elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Here are some facts:
Isn’t it strange that in 72 adjudicated lawsuits challenging Barack Hussein Obama II’s eligibility to be President of the United States, no court has ruled him to be ineligible and that includes eight different appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States: Berg v Obama, Beverly v The Federal Elections Commission, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Hebert, et. al. v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes or Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
It’s also rather strange that if having two American citizen parents was required in order to be a natural born citizen that Vice President Cheney would count and certify Barack Hussein Obama II’s 365 Electoral College votes and not one of the 535 members of Congress would object to that certification, as it was their legal right to do.
Its also strange that an acknowledged constitutional scholar like Chief Justice John Roberts would agree to administer the Oath of Office to a person who wasn’t constitutionally eligible to hold the office.
Barack Hussein Obama II HIMSELF wrote a book in 1995 that went on to become a number one bestseller called “Dreams From My Father” in which he detailed at great length his father’s life, birth in Kenya and his father’s citizenship in both the British Empire and Colonies and the new nation of Kenya. Not one Chief Elections Official in any of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia has EVER questioned or challenged Obama’s right to be on the ballot in any state.
In fact, in the state of Arizona, Barack Hussein Obama II had to sign a pledge on an official state document that he was a natural born United States citizen. He did sign that pledge and no court has challenged his natural born citizen status.
Here’s a link to a scanned image of that statement:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
So if Obama signed an official government document stating that he is natural born and eligible to be on the ballot as a presidential candidate, it is even stranger that no state has at least initiated a grand jury investigation and subpoenaed documents and compelled witnesses to testify.
Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency in February of 2007 and he’s been the 44th President of the United States for a year and nine months now.
You cite a ruling from a STATE court as the last word on this issue? And here I thought the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the Constitution. Now that you’ve set us straight—that it’s actually the Indiana appeals court that determines what the Constitution means—I’ll have to rethink everything.
You must not be an American citizen, because even the dumbest of us citizens know that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Each STATE has the power to set its own election laws and it is usual and ordinary in America for issues to begin in the state courts and then move to the federal judiciary up to the Supreme Court however in the case of Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, there was an appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court and it was denied a hearing. There was no further attempt to appeal the case to the federal court, so the state court decision stands as the only adjudicated lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligiblity to receive Electoral College votes as a natural born citizen with only one of his parents being a US citizen.
Still posting that tripe huh Jamese?
We all know that that discredited decision contradicted itself in note 14....
You sir, are a serial liar!
Begone Troll!
You madam, are a cereal layer.
Begone Gnome!
“I’m still posting the actual decisions issued by real courts that have the force of law behind them.”
You ignore the fact that the decision contradicts itself in it’s own footnotes....It’s a minor decision in a small state that, if any lawyer should use it in a brief, would be sued for malpractice.....you’re a funny guy!
You madam, are a cereal layer.
Begone Gnome!
I was right you are funny! You’re better at standup comedy than you are at Law.....hint: Don’t quit your day job. (oh I forgot Obama’s Outreach for America is your day job......nevermind!)
It is seriously misinterpreted law that anyone born in the US (which is itself a contested status in re Steven Dunham) is “naturally born a citizen”, if you quoted the one Justices side-note in a decision properly.
The Supreme Court has been overruled again and again by the Executive, by the States and by the People. And also by itself. Marbury is not settled law, it is in reality a moot decision. Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.
Why indeed was the 14th written? Why the TENTH?
*YOUR* INITIAL VINDICTIVE BLATHER WAS THAT I had not read the constitution. That was an assertion idiotic. Of course I have! But to you, like any overreaching Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean.
I was right you are funny! You’re better at standup comedy than you are at Law.....hint: Don’t quit your day job. (oh I forgot Obama’s Outreach for America is your day job......nevermind!)
“....it’s best to use a little humor to help make one’s points.”
Especially when your distortions, misquotes, and outright lies won’t stand up on their own.....
see ya on the next sandbox playground, sonny! Pssst don’t get any sand in your PB&J sandwich!
( PS Most humor goes right over the heads of Chronological and Intelllectual children, which is why I keep mine very basic when joshing with you....Smile Junior!)
“Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean...”
These guys can’t be convinced by logic or a correct reading of the various laws or court decisions. They pull things out of context and distort everything else... They’ve either made up their minds to support Obama’s usurption of the presidency as impossible to correct, or are paid trolls covering Obama’s butt, and trying to sow dischord among conservatives.
Other than a short exchange or two, it dosen’t pay to respond to these knuckleheads....it just gives them an excuse to post their nonsense over and over again ad nausium....in short.....
” Dont’t feed the trolls. Ignore them.
jamese777 cited a ruling from a STATE appeals court in Indiana which made a statement about natural born citizenship. I reminded him that SCOTUS is the court of last resort in this country, especially with regard to interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; no state appeals court opinion affects the entire nation. Indiana state courts interpret and apply STATE laws. Their decision may stand, but only in Indiana.
Note how jamese777 not so deftly changes the subject. We were talking about whether a STATE appeals court is empowered to interpret the Constitution for the rest of the country. But jamese777 redirects to electoral college factoids. Irrelevant.
Note how jamese777 begins the typical Alinsky tactic of attacking and ridiculing the opponent, especially when the facts are not in his favor.
jamese777, I have an advanced university degree in science as well as two degrees in other fields. What’s your educational background? Did you take 6th-grade civics? If so, in what country?
jamese777 went on, “You must not be an American citizen, because even the dumbest of us citizens know that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth Amendment did not give state appeals courts the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution for the rest of the nation. Are YOU an American citizen? I am. Natural born, too, btw. How about you?
In response to a claim by jamese777 that “Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama were permanently domiciled in Honolulu at the time of their son’s birth at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961 and when two birth announcements appeared in the local Honolulu newspapers on the following Sunday and Monday, August 13th and 14th, 1961,” I asked him questions which he declined to answer.
Who exactly WERE the Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama who had a son in Honolulu? No mother’s name was given. No child’s name was given. Barack Obama was given as the father’s name, but he could NOT be the person who’s allegedly the father of the POTUS because contemporaneous city directories (actual documents, published over 40 years ago) prove that the African exchange student known as Barack (or Barak, or Barrack) Hussein Obama (a temporary visitor to the US, here for college, not to set up a permanent residency in this country) DID NOT LIVE AT THAT ADDRESS!! This is fact. Documented fact. The man the POTUS claims as his father had his own apartment where he lived alone. So it’s questionable if this couple named in the announcement are the parents of the POTUS.
Once again, instead of responding to the actual questions, jamese777 brings up a bunch of irrelevancies about the lawsuits, Dick Cheney, and John Roberts. Anything to avoid addressing the mysterious discrepancies in the fictional biography. jamese777 said this:
“I prefer dealing with facts, not suppositions, rumors and innuendos. Barack Hussein Obama II HIMSELF wrote a book in 1995.”
Whether or not the POTUS wrote that book himself or whether Bill Ayers wrote/ghostwrote/edited/finished it for him, the FACT remains that in the beginning, Obama admits that the book is nothing more than historical FICTION. Dramatized narrative. In other words, fantasy, myth, what Barry “dreams” happened. He admitted this. It’s fictionalized history, if there’s ANY history to be found in it.
jamese777 brings up that Obama signed a sworn statement that he is eligible for the presidency. That may eventually cause him more problems than he ever imagined.
obumpa
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.