Posted on 05/30/2011 7:40:28 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The United States is in a Constitutional and political crisis without precedent.
What can ordinary Americans do when a large number of politicians are corrupt and an even larger portion of the national political leadership is complicit in a cover-up of that corruption?
Do we petition those leaders to investigate and punish themselves?
(snip)
The evident bewilderment displayed by Will is prima facie evidence of the depth of denial now prevalent in Washington, D.C.
It is an equivalent to writing an article after the Pearl Harbor attack entitled “The Japanese might not like us.”
(snip)
Having been born in Panama and not eligible to run for the Presidency, McCain obviously doesn’t recognize the Constitution either.
For me, the uncertainty about McCain’s ineligibility was resolved by the bogus, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Obama, which declared McCain a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
The fact that Congress has no authority to do such a thing was apparently completely irrelevant to that majestic body. Maybe I’m a cynic, but it sounds to me like just another crooked, backroom deal.
If McCain and Obama both didn’t need the “cover”, why go through that elaborate Senate charade?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Was that a US military hospital? His father was active duty military, right? And his mother a US citizen. US bases in foreign countries are considered US territory. Even if the hospital was local, his father's posting to a US base seals the deal.
McCain was legally qualified to be President. In a practical sense he is not fit to be a dog catcher.
It was not a military hospital. It was built by Catholics a long time ago. Since no one seems to know what a “natural-born citizen” is, I guess it really doesn’t matter anyway. I’m still hoping Netanyahu will run. Then we would see who would have “standing” to say he couldn’t. I’d vote for him, though.
I’s like to see Sarah and Bibi get together for a chat.
Thank you.
Please cite your source for this post
I wish Frantzie could have posted other information. The financial analysis was good.
The posts about the media, while true, were predictable. Funny. This is a Frantzie moment.
My sister was born in Ramstein. I went to Base Schools untill 5th grade and we were taught what the Constitution said about this matter more then once.
She is a natural born citizen as you say.
Even if it was a local hospital, both McCain’s father and mother were US citizens, and his father was active duty military deployed overseas. Did the law as written foresee this? I don’t think so. IMHO I would still allow this. Still, McCain was not my real choice for 2008, but I held my nose and voted for him anyway, knowing that Barry Dunham would be a disaster.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
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). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. 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….” Id. at 6. 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….” Id. at 7. 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….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.
In the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen”.
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
The most absolutely favorite activity of the MSM is to build a leader to prodigious heights and then cut the foundation out from under him. The media take special glee in destroying pantheons of virtue and prestige.
Mark my words, Obama’s time will come. When the media realize that their vaunted popularity is substantially damaged by their current love affair with the One they will abandon him, shocked that they were duped, and ready to string him up as a loser and a fraud.
The MSM will reveal, as if for the first time, all the tawdry criminal acts we have been screaming about. They will drive him out of office when it becomes apparent that he is a lost cause. All they need is another Marxist to fondle. They are, after all, objective and aloof.
He was not born on board a Navy ship.
Please. He was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama. I’m sure someone will come up with a source shortly.
Looks interesting.
I believe anyone born on foreign soil to American-born parents who were in the military and stationed out of country because of military assignment should be considered a NBC. However, what I believe doesn’t hold a lot of legal weight. We need a definitive answer by someone above my pay grade.
I voted for McCain only because Sarah Palin was his running mate. Hopefully this time the Republicans can give us a real conservative who can beat Obama.
Amen, Dear ExTexasRedhead.
The lamestream media have gone far beyond a love affair with barry the bastard. They worship him, showing that in their minds he can do no wrong. We passed the time for guillotine solutions months ago. I have no idea what it will take now to stop this demonic worship of this lying scumbag in the chief executive office.
McCain was not born on a military base. He is not a natural born citizen no matter how much people want him to be.
Why are you mixing "non-citizen" and "non-Natural Born Citizen" up? No one is saying McCain isn't a citizen. Sheesh.
Absolutely correct. They are natural born US Citizens as they are not recognized by the country where the family is stationed. They are placed on Mom’s passport immediately as US citizens. Look it up. I know lots of people in this situation and it is pretty well established in law. Only people looking to cover up or divert attention would even bring it up.
My nephew was born here in Thailand. His father is an American citizen born in Minnesota and his mother (my sister-in-law) is a naturalized US citizen. My nephew became an American citizen the second he was born. His passports states it clearly. He is a natural born US citizen and is eligible to be President. He cannot be a Thai citizen.
No, he wasn't. But agree with you otherwise.
McCain was declared to be a citizen by law , not by nature. The article questions Congress's authority to pass laws against nature.
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.