Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
that is NOT what is written. As Scholars have noted, including at least one Justice on the Supreme Court - the person had to be a natural born citizen AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
So if you want to take it literally - that’s what it is written.
Anyone who has any professional familiarity with U.S. legal history knows that the common law of England was also the common law of the colonies, and remained the common law of the states thereafter unless superceded by statute. To argue that the ratifying states would have been endorsing an interpretation of a foreign legal system (the continental system, via Vattel), over the English common law view -- which common law was practiced every day in American courts -- makes no sense.
Our legal tradition is the English common law. If the Constitution is silent in terms of defining a term, resort to English common law interpretations would have been the natural instinct and belief of Americans at the time of ratification.
Hey Nooby Troll. If you spent more than 5 seconds here at FR, you would be able to detect sarcasm. Why don't you head back to the tin foil hat website you came from.
Maybe you are right. But as I ask the birthers every time, HOW do you think this illegitimacy will be rectified?
Obama is unlikely to say "Oh goodness me, you're quite right. I'm not a natural born citizen after all!!" and start clearing out his desk.
Was Rubio born here? Then he is eligible. What exactly does Natural Born mean to you? Where was it defined further in the constitution or in any amendment?
Then it appears your commitment to the proposition is stronger than your reasoning.
Obviously the definition of natural born citizen, circa 1790, as understood by our founders wasn't that of two citizen parents and born in country.
Why do you keep spouting off from a position of Ignorance? (or perhaps deliberately misleading people?) Prior to the Women's Citizenship act of 1934 (and the Cable act of 1922) citizenship of offspring was decided ONLY by the father. The mothers were automatically made citizens upon marriage to the father.
In 1790, American fathers ALWAYS created "natural born citizens" because Marriage automatically naturalized the woman. You further leave out the fact that the Naturalization act of 1790 specifically forbids citizenship to the children of foreign males! (Unless they thereafter become citizens.)
Reducto ad absurdum.
If the stable was in the US or its territories, then the person is a US citizen by birth. If that stable was in Bethlehem, then the child born is a citizen of Israel - not the US.
Here's a direct, simple question for you: do you gain citizenship by being born on US soil? Simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
The Founders didn’t want the VP to become President..only an Acting One. John Tyler decided he would become President after Harrison died and Congress let him get away with it by calling him President...and that set the precedent until a rule was formally adopted.
So, in essence, Tyler wasn’t an legitimate President.
The Founding Father’s vision did not get implemented in this regard. And there are other examples.....
I don’t have a definition of Natural Born Citizen. There is one clear definition. There may be others. No one knows.
Read the Cable Act. Where or how did it create a new subcategory of citizenship? You're either not a citizen, still a full citizen, or considered a naturalized citizen - the three that have always been. If you're a citizen, you're either a citizen by birth or by process of naturalization. The Cable Act does nothing to change that.
These two acts together CREATED a condition that did not exist before. Children born to split allegiance. Prior to this time, ALL children were born either Totally American or Totally foreign.
Please point out in the Cable Act where it deals with citizenship other than the mother. Please point out how it changes the citizenship of any children to a "new" subcategory that did not exist before. I've linked the actual text of the Act - it's just 1 page, it should be easy to identify this new subcategory of citizenship if it exists, as you claim.
Do you think all children born to US citizen fathers were born within the state of matrimony? Talk about arguing from a position of absolute IGNORANCE!
Under the 1790 act there was no mention of the requirement that the father and mother be married for the child of a US citizen father (one parent) born overseas (not in country) to be a natural born citizen.
Thus clearly the child of a US citizen father to a non citizen mother who the father was not married to, was considered a natural born citizen under the 1790 Act.
As the English law dealt with "Subjects" and not "Citizens", and as we threw off their designation of "Subjects" in not just one war, but in two, then yes, I should say we specifically rejected English law in this particular circumstance and substituted the common contemporary theory of Independent citizenship which happens to have been first articulated by a Swiss writer. Bear in mind that Vattel was not writing of "Swiss Law" but of "Natural Law." A Concept made popular by Locke, Rosseau, Burke, et al.
We also threw off such English law concepts as quartering of troops in Subjects homes, Debtor Prisons, Lese Majeste, in the guise of Freedom of Speech, and we Rejected English Law regarding Freedom of Religion, by overturning the Anglican Church as our national religion.
Yes, we quite thoroughly rejected many English laws and Principles when we became Americans. I dare say what the founders created was much better.
I’ll add that Vattel’s Switzerland still bases citizenship on who your parents are, not where you are born.
“Swiss citizenship is propagated by Jus sanguinis. A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:
born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point...
Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_nationality_law
http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/ocea/vaus/ref_livfor/livaus/swicit.html
It has not been adjudicated yet. A competent court can reach no other conclusion.
There is no third category of US citizenship than the two mentioned and contemplated by the US Constitution.
It is not mentioned in the Constitution because when it was written the condition did not exist. Do you not comprehend that?
One is either born a citizen or they must naturalized into that state of natural allegiance that citizenship at birth recognizes.
I am reminded of the ranting of the sheep in the book "Animal Farm. "
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs BAAAAD!"
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs BAAAAD!"
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs BAAAAD!"
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs BAAAAD!"
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs BAAAAD!"
Will you not cease with your senseless droning?
As I read my copy of the USA Constitution it isn’t explicit one way or the other as to parents being part of the wording of natural born citizen. I think one can argue that omission of mentioning parents is tantamount to saying there is no qualification based on parentage. However, my belief is that there is much more history as to the inclusion of parents in that requirement,one or both, to establish that such was indeed the intent of the Founders. I also believe that my view is much safer for the viability of our Nation as the Founders intended with Obama as the example. Nothing at all against Rubio but just accepting what the Founders intended by a WWII vet caught in the same predicament.
Oh lord what a statement. There is a long history - here in the US and in England..and many battles fought over the requirement of a marriage and how the lack thereof effects citizenship - INCLUDING Obama’s British citizenship if born in the US of bigamous marriage to a British Citizen.
Btw, the Nguyen case - the one where SCOTUS actually references running for President - is a case about an illegitimate child born of a citizen father...and the different treatment that child gets depending on if the mother or the father is the citizen.
The condition of being born to a US citizen father and a non US citizen mother most certainly DID exist, unless you are intent upon insisting that all children born were born to married parents - a rather dubious proposition - one apparently far beyond your ability to comprehend.
Senseless droning is all anyone can expect from you - but maybe if you speculate about who 0bama’s REAL father and mother is it will convince people you R serious poster dealing with serious stuff!!!!
“As the English law dealt with “Subjects” and not “Citizens”, and as we threw off their designation of “Subjects” in not just one war, but in two, then yes, I should say we specifically rejected English law in this particular circumstance and substituted the common contemporary theory of Independent citizenship which happens to have been first articulated by a Swiss writer. “
According to Vattel, and as still practiced in Switzerland, being born in Switzerland is irrelevant to your citizenship. It is your parentage that matters.
So...when you apply for a US passport, do you show a birth certificate, or a genealogy?
The US Supreme Court has already said - in the 1890s-
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
They also 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.”
and
“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.”
And:
And he elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
You want to explain how we thus “specifically rejected English law in this particular circumstance and substituted the common contemporary theory of Independent citizenship which happens to have been first articulated by a Swiss writer”?
A poster is insisting that due to automatic naturalization of a woman to the citizenship of her husband- there was no possibility of a child being born to a US citizen parent and a non-US citizen parent.
Do you acknowledge that a child could be born of a US citizen father and a non citizen mother that he was not married to?
If so then it is obviously incorrect that a child could not, at that time, be born to only ONE citizen parent.
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.