Posted on 04/07/2011 12:46:23 PM PDT by patlin
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE II
Sec 5 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nearly a year ago now, Mark R. Levin with all his constitutional expertise stated the dual citizenship is not 14th Amendment citizenship. Rather it is citizenship by statute. If so, the how cone he is ignoring Article II qualifications and promoting Bobby Jindal for president, knowing that Jindal was born a citizen of India? Would that not make Jindal a citizen by statute, not by nature? Also, he recently has been promoting Marco Rubio. I like Marco, but do we know for a fact that his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of Marco's birth?
Caller: Yes, how does dual citizenship work? How can person have dual alliances for example…… let’s say we got into a war with say IsraelYello! Yello! Could someone get Mark on the phone & ask him to explain this to us please?Mark: hahahahaha
Caller: You know what I am saying
Mark: yeah, yeah, the jews, we gotta watch out for them
Caller: No, no, it could be that….
Mark: Let me explain something to you. In terms of dual citizenship, that is done statutorily, you understand? In other words, Congress determines, us, the nature of dual citizenship, what qualifies for dual citizenship and so forth; which is why it is so absurd to argue that 14th Amendment by itself confers citizenship on illegal aliens
Caller: Well, that’s a good point, that’s a very good point. I understand
Mark: Well, it’s the truth, it’s not even, yeah
Caller: No, no, I understand ya, I’m not arguing with ya, I listen to you to learn
Mark: Alright my friend, thank you, you’re a good man, thank you…I’m no fan of dual citizenship either, I’ll be perfectly honest with you
“Not sure how much you keep up with current events, but in 1868 we passed the 14th Amendment.”
Yeah, I know. I also know you are trying to tell me that it redefined the requirements for President. Funny, I don’t recall reading in there anywhere that “Article II is hereby repealed.”
Must have missed it.
So you keep telling us.
And where does Article II define natural born citizen?
“And where does Article II define natural born citizen? “
It is defined in the unabridged index contained at the end of the Constitution, where other commonly understood terms such as “We the People”, “Freedom of Speech”, and “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” are also defined.
“Basically it says that NO WAY can a man with a foreign born father be even a citizen, let alone a “Natural Born Citizen.””
Now, do you really believe that after the 14th Amendment, that a man with a foreign born father cannot be a citizen?
In other words, it isn't.
“You are not a natural born citizen. You are subject to two jurisdictions.”
How about my children. They were born in the USA to two US citizen parents and they are also citizens of the country in S. America where I was born.
Their children as well as their great-great-great grandchildren will also be considered citizens of that nation.
Is it your view that none of my decedents will be natural born citizens as another nation can claim them to be citizens?
Yeah, didn’t you know that ALL the terms used in the Constitution are explicitly defined in the Index? You see, people back then couldn’t remember the meanings of various words and phrases in English, so they had to constantly remind themselves what the meaning of these common words and phrases meant, so they were constantly referencing this unabridged index during their everyday lives.
Fortunately, we are much smarter than they are, because some of us have figured out that specific words and phrases can have any meaning we want,(living document you know.) especially when we don’t like the original meaning.
For example: some of us believe that if we plop out on a bit of dirt, we will have automatically qualified to lead the government of that bit of dirt. This same theory explains how we get horses. People born in a Stable are automatically a horses!
This same phenomena worked in England. That’s how we got the nobility. People born in Manor houses were nobility, and people born in ordinary villages were peasants. Once in a while a peasant would sneak into the manor house to give birth, and the Nobility would acquire a new member!
But you said earlier that an act of Congress cannot redefine Article II. What you meant to say was that an act of Congress cannot redefine what you personally believe Article II means. There is a difference.
Now, do you really believe that after the 14th Amendment, that a man with a foreign born father cannot be a citizen?
Okay, i’ll assume you did that accidentally, and not on purpose. You took the quote out of context. I was referring to the meaning and zeitgeist which existed when the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed. In case you missed it, that preceded the 14th amendment by what? 78 years?
So now that I pointed this out, do you really want to ask me this anachronistic question in an attempt to refute the meaning and intent of an act in 1790 by referring to an Amendment in 1868?
Apart from that, YEAH. In 1790, The Laws of various nations made the offspring of fathers from those nations into Subjects of those nations. So if you had a Foreign born Father, (that had not naturalized) the children were recognized as subjects of the Father’s nation. (I say subjects, because we were the only country in the world not ruled by a monarchy. )
“In other words, it isn’t.”
“NO Further Questions your Honor!”
Yeah, don’t try that lawyerly crap on me. MOST of the terms in the Constitution are not defined IN the constitution. The Specific CONCEPT of the term “Natural Born Citizen” is attributed to Emerich Vattel.
You might not be aware of this, but his book, “Law of Nations” was well known by Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, John Jay, and all the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. It was more or less used as a blueprint for the entire U.S. Constitution. It was even CITED in the records of the Convention.
Something gets INTO the records of Convention, you’ve got a pretty tough argument claiming they weren’t aware of it.
By the way, I’ve got cites for everything I just said. Try me. :)
Your children ARE natural born children. The United States is NOT bound by the laws of other nations. We are bound by our own laws.
From my reading, the only thing truly necessary for “Natural Born Citizen” status, is to be born to two American Citizens. Loyalty is not given to dirt, it is given to Lawful Authority. Authority is not restricted to location. An American Citizen posses his rights and responsibility to his government regardless WHERE he is, and by the Same token the government reciprocates.
It is completely unreasonable to believe that any government would not recognize the loyalty and rights of citizens which may be serving it’s interests abroad.
The obsession with dirt is just stupid. It was a carryover from the English Law that made anyone born on English soil into a Subject of the Crown. The Crown used any excuse whatsoever to claim a Subject, so being born on the Dirt qualified, as well as being born to an English Father anywhere in the World.
Since a Subject was basically a servant, why should they not want as wide a net as possible?
By the way, the founders explicitly REJECTED Much of English Common Law. (I have quotes.)
“But you said earlier that an act of Congress cannot redefine Article II. What you meant to say was that an act of Congress cannot redefine what you personally believe Article II means. There is a difference.”
An act of congress cannot redefine ANY aspect of the constitution. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to that fact. That is OBJECTIVE FACT.
The question is not whether Congress can redefine it. (They cannot.) The question is what is the objective meaning and intent?
That question is easily enough answered by researching what the founders wrote, starting with John Jay’s letter to Washington which CAUSED that term to be inserted into Article II.
Your argument is not with me. You must refute what the founders wrote. Here’s a link to get you started.
“Is it your view that none of my decedents will be natural born citizens as another nation can claim them to be citizens?”
That is a good question. I’m not sure I have the answer to that one. It would appear that your children, born in the US of citizen parents would be considered natural born Citizens and eligible to be President of the United States. Since I don’t know the country you were born in, or their citizenship laws, I don’t know how they can claim your kids as their citizens.
While there was a birth certificate issued by your birth country for you (which your parents took to the local US Consulate or Embassy where they registered you as a US citizen and obtained a passport for you), your children have no such foreign birth certificate.
If you were born on a military base in a foreign country, there would be no foreign birth certificate.
I lived and worked overseas for 16 years with a lot of US Expats. Been through the registration process a number of times with them.
It would be best if the Supreme Court got the Obama case and defined the term “natural born Citizen”, and put an end to this discussion once and for all.
Good Lord why would we ever want to let the law get in the way? </sarcasm>
MOST of the terms in the Constitution are not defined IN the constitution. The Specific CONCEPT of the term “Natural Born Citizen” is attributed to Emerich Vattel.
And where does the Constitution state that Vattel's is the definition? As opposed to Blackstone? Or someone else?
You might not be aware of this, but his book, “Law of Nations” was well known by Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, John Jay, and all the delegates at the Constitutional Convention....It was even CITED in the records of the Convention.
As was Blackstone. And others.
It was more or less used as a blueprint for the entire U.S. Constitution.
And that is pure nonsense.
By the way, I’ve got cites for everything I just said. Try me. :)
Knock yourself out.
And I agree. An act of Congress cannot make that which unconstitutional suddenly constitutional.
That question is easily enough answered by researching what the founders wrote, starting with John Jay’s letter to Washington which CAUSED that term to be inserted into Article II.
But Jay's letter did not define natural-born citizen. It did not reference Vattel, or Blackstone or anyone else for that matter. And no such definition has been included in the Constitution itself.
Your argument is not with me. You must refute what the founders wrote. Here’s a link to get you started.
No actually I'm pretty sure it's with you.
“But Jay’s letter did not define natural-born citizen. It did not reference Vattel, or Blackstone or anyone else for that matter. And no such definition has been included in the Constitution itself.”
You sound like a “Penumbra” sort of fellow. It is in the “Penumbra” of the letter. Hey, if it’s good enough for Roe v Wade, it ought to be good enough for Article II, right?
It really is hard to believe that you could read the letter (which I doubt you did) and conclude that it means anything other than to KEEP OUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE.
If you think John Jay was against Foreign influence, you should see what GEORGE WASHINGTON had to say about it. Wasn’t he the President of the Convention or something? (I have links by the way.) :)
“
Your argument is not with me. You must refute what the founders wrote. Here’s a link to get you started.
No actually I’m pretty sure it’s with you. “
I guess you aren’t astute enough to tell the difference between the author of a letter and the messenger who is delivering it.
Argue with the messenger then. I’ll simply relay what the founders said. :)
“Yeah, don’t try that lawyerly crap on me.
Good Lord why would we ever want to let the law get in the way? </sarcasm>”
It is not a compliment. It is a reference to the well known fact that many who practice law have no difficulty in “attesting” and “asserting” to things not factually true, and objecting to the introduction of evidence that IS factually true. It is a reference to the tactics of lawyers that are considered SLEAZY, not a derogation towards the concept of law and legal principles.
But your response is an good example of exactly what I’m talking about. Misdirection and subterfuge.
Hence the prohibition against naturalized citizens being president. I get that.
If you think John Jay was against Foreign influence, you should see what GEORGE WASHINGTON had to say about it. Wasn’t he the President of the Convention or something? (I have links by the way.) :)
And what might that be?
I guess you aren’t astute enough to tell the difference between the author of a letter and the messenger who is delivering it.
You mean the messenger putting his own spin on it.
“MOST of the terms in the Constitution are not defined IN the constitution. The Specific CONCEPT of the term “Natural Born Citizen” is attributed to Emerich Vattel.
And where does the Constitution state that Vattel’s is the definition? As opposed to Blackstone? Or someone else? “
Why does it need to state such? It is implicit in the doctrines which were adopted. They were certainly alien to English law. English Law would have maintained the Nobility and the official Clergy. We jettisoned much of that crap.
Your argument is that they did not define specific terms in common usage among the delegates at that time, so therefore we cannot POSSIBLY fathom what they were getting at with such obscure terms as “Freedom of Speech,” “Right to Keep and Bear Arms”,”We the People”, and “Natural Born Citizen.”
Even after many of them individual said, and reinforced the point collectively with an act of the first congress, still their meaning and intent escapes you!
At this point, if a document was found containing all the signatures of all the delegates to the convention, alongside the signatures of every ratifying legislature of all 13 colonies, attesting to their intent to prevent foreign influence in the office of the Presidency, you would no doubt still ask, “I wonder what they mean? “
Read the Federalist papers. This issue is discussed in there as well. I would excerpt them for you, but I’m suspecting it would be a waste of my time. Not yours, of course. You might actually get some knowledge on you.
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.
