Posted on 01/02/2011 1:00:02 PM PST by opentalk
Notwithstanding Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility for the office he occupies as a direct result of his father’s citizenship, Obama can’t even prove he is an American. In fact the only thing we can confirm about Obama is that he is a foreigner–foreign to America, foreign to the english language, and ignorant of our history. At this late date, after millions of dollars spent, people mysteriously dying, and the jailing of a decorated Army officer–all of whom questioned Obama’s legality–any so called ‘birth certificate’ produced now is nothing more than suspect, and it is more than likely another faked document…a worthless piece of paper just like all of Obama’s so called ‘credentials’.
We know Obama was born British, is likely a Kenyan citizen, and is Indonesian; we know he was never naturalized as an American citizen; we know there is no record of his name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama, II; we know he lied on his Illinois bar form about his previous names; we know he is using a stolen social security number, and that he has multiple social security numbers, and we know that Obama has a forged selective service registration.
Who does this kind of stuff except an illegal alien?
One of the things Obama cannot prove is that he is an American. He won’t release anything and asks us to believe him…as he robs our savings, our livelihood and our America.
(Excerpt) Read more at drkatesview.wordpress.com ...
I’m sorry, I should have pinged you for #560 since I mentioned your name. Please accept my apology for the etiquette breach.
No, I'm not. My point is that what the Founders intended in that regard does not matter once the 14th Amendment had passed. The Founder also intended that slavery was legal, that slaves couldn't hold office, and that slaves couldn't vote, too. All of those things reflecting the intent of the Founders were changed by the Reconstruction Amendments.
Your argument that the 14th amendment doesn't matter because it deals with "citizenship" rather than "eligibility" is absurd given that eligibility for the office of President is defined by citizenship.
To me, the only reasonable reading of both the "natural born citizen" clause and the 14th Amendment is that there are two classes of citizens. Those who are born citizens, and those who are naturalized. The former may become President, the latter may not. The effect of the 14th Amendment was to make everyone born in this country and subject to its jurisdiction a citizen at birth.
Your dismissal of the 14th Amendment amounts to the bizarre claim that a person who the Constitution expressly states is a citizen at birth is not a "natural born citizen". There is nothing in the Constitution that either states or implies such a bizarre result that defies the plain meaning of words. It is the exact same type of text-defying, results-oriented logic we see from liberals who try to pervert the plain text of the Constitution for their own subjective ends.
Nope. The ONLY place Natural Born Citizen is mentioned in the Constitution is in regards to President and Vice President. The 14th has to do with slaves being recognized as citizens. It was passed in 1868, right after the Civil War because up to then, Blacks were not even seen as wholly human let alone citizens. The 14th Amendment was part of the reconstruction.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
You can debate it all you like but you won't change history nor Obamas status.
Have a nice day.
Jus tout of curiosity, how about a someone born to two U.S. citizens overseas? Should they be permitted to become President?
The tactics a person uses depends on what the goal is. My goal is not necessarily to get rid of Obama. If we get rid of him there will be a thousand more just like him willing to do the same things he’s done. My goal is to create the kind of accountability within government that the Founders knew was essential to this form of government having any chance of surviving.
This issue has been (supposedly) on the “fringe” all along, since Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads with annihilation of their companies if they reported about this. Now think about that. Through criminal threats, using regulatory and enforcement powers of government agencies, Obama’s lawyers have successfully eliminated a free press for all the people who rely on the MSM for their information - which is more than enough people to decide elections.
Obama’s thugs have done the same thing with inspectors general, which they have illegally fired in order to avoid scrutiny of those government agencies through which Obama wields unaccountable power.
They’ve done the same thing with Chrysler lawyers and AIG execs.
This is what they do. But they were only able to do what they did to inspectors general, Chrysler and AIG execs, etc because Obama got his camel’s nose under the tent by getting into the White House - and that required the grand-daddy threat: the threat which castrated EVERY news source and not just the already self-neutered MSM.
As long as our law enforcement lets this kind of lawlessness go by unchecked, the entire political process will be dysfunctional. We cannot function without a free press. The Founders knew that, and that’s why the First Amendment is so critical to the survival of this nation and this form of government.
And that same kind of lawlessness has impacted every level of government, including the most basic information processing and records storage that impacts every person. It is a pervasive gangrene that has infected and is taking over all the functions of government and media - and it is able to do it because law enforcement at every level refuses to enforce the rule of law.
It’s not just our southern border that is being invaded by a ruthless enemy; it is our entire infrastructure. Systematically, beginning with the neutering of the free press in October of 2008 - which I believe was only possible because of the electronic bank run by Soros and his Islamic and communist cronies who share the goal of destroying the US.
Getting rid of Obama is not going to get rid of this deadly invasion. Allowing him in for even this long has created a lawlessness and is setting precedents that are deadly.
I promised my husband I’d take a nap so I need to wrap this up, but letting all this lawlessness go unchecked is not a good strategy for America. The Founders knew we needed a free press and accountability. What Obama has done - largely THROUGH his thugs’ attempts to silence the eligibility issue - is to apply the mob tactics to all of our society in order to get rid of accountability where the rubber hits the road: in the offices of the bureaucrats who carry out the policies, and in the offices of those who decide what gets printed and aired.
We cannot just appease this lawlessness and hope that the gangrene will somehow take care of itself. If this lawlessness goes unchecked, getting rid of Obama will just be like chopping a head off the Hydra, only to have 3 more grow from the stump. The Founders recognized that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so there is only ONE thing that can keep a country from tyranny: genuine accountability that can’t be deflected by crooks and politicians.
If we roll over and die on the grand-daddy corruption and lawlessness that has spawned Obama’s ability to neuter all other forms of accountability, we will be giving up on the only thing the founders knew really mattered to the existence of a people free of tyranny: accountability.
To grasp the Constitution, we HAVE to grasp that reality. An assault on the mechanisms of accountability is a shot to the heart of this form of government. If we roll over and die on that, we roll over and die, period.
So you are saying that the original requirement for POTUS is that the person be a “citizen”, and since the 14th amendment deals with ‘citizenship’, it changed the eligibility requirement. So now, instead of having to be a ‘citizen’, the POTUS merely has to be a ‘citizen’.
That’s what you said, anyway.
Bruce, I have only read one other Freeper’s comments that were as as irrational as yours. I will check with some Constitutional scholars, and see if they want to waste time on this. I have no more time for you because, no offense intended, your logic ranges from bizarre to nonexistent.
DJ MacWoW, thanks for weighing in. My assessment is that this is a hopeless case, not worth your time or mine. Fwiw.
Would you agree that the SCOTUS should decide/clarify that Constitutional question?
Why do you think they are (as Justice Thomas said) “evading that issue”?
Same here. History speaks loudly and it's NOT saying what they claim.
I hope the rest of your day is lovely!
Thank you for the lovely well wishes—and the same to you. :)
Thank you for including me in your ping. My only contribution to your questions is to say we all need to work together to expose Obama’s fraud. I do it on a day to day basis, by educating people re: the traitorous duplicity of this man. If the information is presented well, people are intrigued and dumbfounded. I will continue this approach, and pray critical mass comes before the damage is overwhelming.
:-)
Okay. And where does the Constitution as of 1787 define what was meant by "natural born citizen"?
The 14th has to do with slaves being recognized as citizens. It was passed in 1868, right after the Civil War because up to then, Blacks were not even seen as wholly human let alone citizens. The 14th Amendment was part of the reconstruction.
Nothing in the 14th Amendments states that its provision apply only to freed slaves. A law means what it says, not what some people meant it to say.
Moreover, under your interpretation that it only applies to slavery and freed slaves, then such freed slaves would have much greater Constitutional protections then whites. As you may recall, the 14th Amendment says the following:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
By your logic, those protections would apply only to freed slaves. Thereore, states remain free to deprive white people of life, liberty, and property, to deny them equal protection of the laws, and to abridge their privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. So your "it only applies to slaves" argument makes no sense to me.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
No, he didn't. That may have been his intent, and his opinion, but that's the most it is.
As Scalia routinely points out when discussing the role of legislative history, the public opinions and statements of legislators do not, and should not, override the plain text of an Amendment ratified by Congress as a whole, and in the case of Amendments, as approved by all those state legislatures. Because we have absolutely no idea if those self-serving statements were just his own opinion, or reflected the opinions of the body as a whole, or reflected the opinions of the state legislatures that ultimately ratified that amendment. Or whether he just made that statement because he wasn't able to get that language into the text so was trying to insert it via the back door.
But let's see what he says anyway:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
I really can't believe you cited that, but thank you. First, if that's your "evidence", it completely trashes your own argument that the 14th Amendment and its citizenship provisions were intended to apply to freed slaves only. Senator Howard's sweeping statement of what it means says not a word about it only applying to freed slaves.
Second, it's an odd statement because it doesn't quite make sense. The part about being in the families of foreign ambassadors or foreign ministers is specific enough. But what is the difference between an "alien" and a "foreigner", because he mentions both? And he doesn't even say the families of "aliens" or "foreigners", as he did with the families of ambassadors and ministers. He just says that it doesn't make citizens out of "aliens" or "foreigners", which of course would include foreign ambassadors or ministers as well, so why mention them specifically at all? And that, right there, is one of your problems with using individual statements in legislative history to overcome the plain text of a law. Because they can be confusing, vague, ambiguous, and even contradictory. Not to mention we have no idea whether anyone else who voted for the Amendment as drafted agreed with this guy's interpretation.
But in any case, I don't see anything in that statement requiring that both of a person's parents also be citizens. And if it really was the intention both of Congress and the legislatures that passed that amendment to include that limitation, then why wasn't that language included in the Amendment?, rather than only being inferred via the statement of a single Senator that wasn't made part of the text?
The only language that actually appears in the Amendment that supports any consideration of parental citizenship is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I could see crafting an argument that someone who is born here of a person who did not have a legal right to be here arguably wouldn't be "subject to the jurisdication thereof". Same with the children of diplomats. That's one reason I don't think babies born of illegal immigrants are necessarily citizens.
But that caveat doesn't apply if the mother of a child born here is a U.S. citizen, because she is entitled to remain here with full rights as a U.S. citizen. So she and her baby would be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the laws of the U.S., and therefore the baby would be a citizen as well, at birth, under the 14th Amendment.
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
What?! That's a completely different point. Nobody is claiming that being a foreigner is the same as being a citizen. Cowan is simply making the point that just because you're not a citizen doesn't mean that you don't have any rights in the U.S. Which, interestingly enough, some folks might dispute in the context of the war on terror and the actions of foreign nationals on U.S. soil.
No. Did you misrepresent what I said intentionally (okay, yes you did), or accidentally?
I specifically said, in case you have difficulty reading, that there is a difference between a "naturalized" citizen, and a someone who is born a citizen. It is not enough for a President to be a citizen, because naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President.
Your problem is that you close your eyes to that existence of naturalized citizens, the obvious category excluded by the natural-born citizen requirement. Such people are ineligible to become President, and anyone with a freaking grain of common sense and touch of honesty knows that's what the Founders didn't want. They didn't want some foreigner coming here, becoming a citizen, and then running for President. So they wanted you to be born a citizen.
Just out of curiosity, let's say a U.S. Marine serves at in the U.K. at the embassy. He meets an English girl, marries her, and brings her back to the States. Their son is born while her citizenship application is pending. By your logic, this son of a U.S. Marine who was born in this country is ineligible to become President, because both of his parents weren't citizens at the moment of his birth. Right?
First, as I stated elsewhere, there may be an argument under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens because they are not here legally. But such an argument would not apply to someone born of a U.S. citizen in the U.S.
Second, even if that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is wrong, you are again engaging in raw judicial acitivism by trying to rewrite the 14th to mean something other than what it's plain language says. If the 14th was drafted poorly enough to make the child of an illegal alien eligible to be President, then the solution is to amend the Constitution, not to rewrite an Amendment you don't like via subjective interpretations. I believe Arizona is looking at that option right now, and I absolutely support that effort.
Go check with your "Constitutional scholars". I've litigated plenty of cases, made plenty of Constitutional arguments. The argument that a child born of a U.S. parent, in the United States is eligible to be President isn't even close. It would win 9-0 in the Supreme Court. The children of illegal immigrants, I don't know because there is at least that "subject to" argument out there.
Now whether Obama himself actually meets the definition, whether he really was born in the U.S., is an entirely different question. It presents a factual rather than legal issue. But on the law, it's not even close.
Exactly what is the constitutional question to which you are referring? Contrary to lay belief, the Court generally hears cases are about pretty specific propositions of law, not factual disputes. So what specific issue of law are you asking the Court to accept?
Why do you think they are (as Justice Thomas said) “evading that issue”?
I think that was a statement of fact rather than one of intent. And I think the reasons they haven't addressed that issue are threefold. First, the Supreme Court is not a factfinding body, and to me, the best argument against Obama -- that he wasn't born in Hawaii -- is a point of fact. Second, I think the legal argument that both of your parents must be citizens for you to be considered a "natural born" citizen, regardless of the text of the 14th Amendment, is a laugher that would lose 9-0. And third, I think they view it as a "political question", and they tend to duck those.
No, the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause has been purposely bastardized. The political activism comes from the left not from us. To elucidate you "The jurisdiction thereof" is not just territorial jurisdiction, it means total jurisdiction thereof as in only and to have total allegiance to the United States. And any honest reading of the intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment bears this as the truth.
Furthermore, the 14th Amendment did not change the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment is an act by man, which makes it not natural law. The Natural Born Citizen clause is natural law. It's that simple.
If the 14th was drafted poorly enough to make the child of an illegal alien eligible to be President, then the solution is to amend the Constitution, not to rewrite an Amendment you don't like via subjective interpretations. I believe Arizona is looking at that option right now, and I absolutely support that effort.
The 14th Amendment is subject to the meaning and intent of its Founders where the intent and meaning has been twisted by the media, the loony leftists, and other malcontents that permeate throughout US society.
If you wish to educate yourself, go to this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2535172/posts
Pay particular attention to posts by:
VRWCmember
Cheerio
Reaganwuzthebest
Arthur McGowan
[To the others I have pinged. Bruce claims the 14th amendment means that any ‘citizen’ can be POTUS, even if one parent is a foreigner. (He has a few more caveats pertaining to the foreigner being legally in US, and the mother giving birth on US soil—but every time I quote him he changes his position). I pinged him to your respective comments because they are the most scholarly and best informed I could find on FR. Thank you for your input.]
I am glad you are out there keeping the issue hot. When this issue first came up, it was so mind-boggling to me that I couldn’t believe it and went on my own fact finding mission. At this point, my views are solid. I have no confidence in Obama and cannot refer to him as President. I respect the office, but not the man. I have just begun to be vocal on this issue, but I will be out there, too, doing what I can. I don’t know if we can turn this thing around, but I know we have to try. Obama is just one piece of the whole big stinky puzzle.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
- - - - -
Right. The 1872 Supreme Court understood the intent and meaning of the founders and Senator Jacob Howard of what the 14th Amendment meant about the, "subject to their jurisdiction", in the Slaughterhouse cases.
-snip-
"To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.
Page 83 U. S. 74
Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual."
-end snip-
The question of whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible is a question of both law and fact, and cases were brought before it even COULD have been a “political question”. Because of the HDOH’s refusal to obey their state laws and rules, the only avenue possible for solving the factual question was through the courts, so blowing off the cases because the court didn’t want to address what you call a laughable question of law was, in effect, a decision to blow off the question of fact for every American who has questions - a lot of them because they rightly resent that the carrier of the nuclear football is less-stringently vetted than their own child is vetted to play in Little League.
And apparently that is a reality that SCOTUS and every other entity with any authority is not only fine with, but is a double standard they will jealously protect.
They’re flipping the entire country the bird.
I suggest that the Declaration of Independence also be read in Congress in its entirety. Particularly the part about governments deriving their authority from the consent of the governed, the part about governments being instituted among men to secure the unalienable rights, and the part about what’s supposed to happen when the government becomes destructive of those ends.
I think it would give them a pretty fair picture of the mood of a large part of the American public, and an explanation for why the Speaker’s gavel changed hands. The whole system has flipped us the bird - not just on the Constitution but also on matters of facts and laws that they just don’t care about.
I look at Issa’s list of investigations and I can’t help but think that they are piddles compared to the lawlessness that has surrounded Obama’s eligibility. If we’re going to swallow that camel, what’s left to strain out is just the gnats that are puny enough to not be politically controversial. And those things are pretty big things, but they are small compared to the grand-daddy of them all, the elephant in the room that politicians, courts, bureaucrats, and media are all calling the 60% who have doubts about Obama’s origins “fringe lunatics” for mentioning.
According to Jeff Kuhner, the media is afraid to address this because they fear that if we get answers a portion of the public will riot. It’s not the people who have the questions they’re afraid of; the government and media have been screwing us from day one and we have stayed within the legal means at our disposal (which amounts to nothing). They are afraid of Obama’s supporters. IOW, in spite of their publicly pointing fingers at the Tea Party as violent, they know where the violence comes from, and they are prepared to hand this nation over to the lawless thugs who wouldn’t like having the lawlessness confronted.
This is serious, serious doo-doo. When the media is scared sh!tless by lawless thugs it’s serious, serious doo-doo, because when we suspend the free press for the sake of terrorists, we lose. Go back and listen to what all was said after 9-11 and realize that what Al Qaeda couldn’t do to bend the knees of this nation by killing 3000 innocents, Obama’s thugs have done, supposedly just by suggesting that people will laugh at anybody who mentions the eligibility issue. I don’t buy it. It’s not because wanting documentation is piddly, extreme, or laughable. It’s because the media has been scared sh!tless by an enemy of America that they recognize as more dangerous than Al Qaeda
on 9-11.
To retreat in the face of that enemy is surrender to terrorism. Plain and simple.
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.