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 ...
Translated:
“You presented facts that I cannot dispute and destroy my position; thus I will ignore your facts, deem you as an unreliable source, and continue on in my mistaken ways”...
Oh, and Lamp? Curious where this mysterious 3rd, new subcategory of citizenship is found in the Cable Act. Or is my calling you on that false statement going to result in me also being dismissed as you’ve done to Mr Rogers? If so, I’ll be in fine company at least...
You're seeing things. It doesn't say this at all. All children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. THESE are the natives, or natural-born citizens, as DISTINGHUISHED from foreigners and aliens. The next part says some authorities go further and INCLUDE AS CITIZENS, those born without reference to the citizenship of the parents. It does NOT say these people are included as natural-born citizens.
And the Supreme Court specifically stated that it was not reaching that issue in that case.
No, it said it didn't need to solve doubts for those persons who citizenship (it does NOT say natural-born citizenship) was recognized without reference to the citizenship of the parents, which tells us the person in question was born to citizen parents.
The problem with your interpretation is that Virginia Minor was arguing that her citizenship was due to the 14th amendment, which would have fallen under that second class of persons. IOW, the court had a perfect opportunity to solve any doubts, if it could do so, without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Therefore, by including that criteria in a defintion specifically about natural citizenship, they EXCLUSIVELY limited that definition to those persons born in the country of citizen parents. Others might be citizens, but they aren't NBCs. Instead they rejected Viriginia's argument on the basis that she was an NBC. Read the whole case. The context is there. Years later, the WKA decision made a point of saying Minor was the child of citizen parents in acknowledging her citizenship. There would have been no need to do this unless it mattered.
When someone is spouting gibberish, it becomes impossible to tell one sort of gibberish from another. I can be forgiven if I mistake everything you say for gibberish.
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.
At this point I do not think it will BE rectified. There is a legal doctrine of the Illegitimate Officer which I think will be applied to everything Obama did even if he IS determined at some later date to have been illegitimate. At this point I think the best goal that can be hoped for is to put a footnote in the History books and prevent it from ever happening again, that is, if we survive this first example of it.
Beyond that, everyone that supported or tolerated this condition needs to be rebuked.
Why, because I simply do not take your word as God's honest truth? I linked the Act - it says nothing of which you claim.
If you do not think the citizenship status of women affects the citizenship status of their children then you are beyond help.
Simple question: if a baby is born in the US to non-citizen parents, is that baby a citizen?
Here is the Act. READ the d@mn thing and learn something!
Hmmm... That's not the Cable Act. So now you are claiming you are correct about what the Cable Act said because you are referencing a different Act? Or will you admit you were wrong about the Cable Act?
You made a specific claim about the Cable Act - I've called you on it. You can either retract your claim, or you can continue going on showing your own ignorance and duplicitous nature.
But how about the fundamental question: if a baby is born in the US to non-citizen parents, is that baby a citizen?
Very simple question. Can you - dare you - answer it?
By the definition you use, the birth certificate shows the citizenship each parent held at birth.
-- Yet according to Vattel, only those born of citizen parents are citizens - as Swiss law still practices. --
Switzerland doesn't have any naturalization process?
I imagine with your insults, you will be riding the lightening soon. Take care Troll. I am not even reading your screeds anymore so don’t bother following me up.
Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont of a natural-born American citizen mother (both her parents traced their lineage back to families who had for generations been living in Vermont), and an Irish citizen father who did not become a naturalized American citizen until Chester was 12 years old. Therefore, Arthur did not himself meet the test of "natural born" under the circumstances; i.e., he was born to parents who were not both citizens, either natural-born or naturalized, at the time of his birth — and this "eligibility issue" was discussed in the newspapers of the time, before and after his election.
DiogenesLamp, I agree with you: Chester A. Arthur "was NOT a natural born citizen" of the United States.
If Rubio was born to parents who were both naturalized citizens at the time of his birth (whether he was born on U.S. soil or elsewhere), then he would be eligible for presidential office. Though I'm not sure of the parents' details here, I do dimly recall reading somewhere recently that his parents were both naturalized before he was born — in which case Rubio would be eligible for presidential office. [Yay!!!] :^)
Jindal's situation is that he was born to parents who were both Indian citizens at the time of his birth in America. Evidently neither had been naturalized as citizens by that time. This would clearly make him ineligible for presidential office.
Natural-born citizenship is based on the international-law doctrine of jus sanguinis — "law of the blood." I.e., of one's parentage.
Native-born citizenship would be based on the doctrine of jus soli, "law of the soil"; i.e., without reference to parentage at all. And this is why I think the way the Fourteenth Amendment is being interpreted these days is on shaky constitutional ground: It is tantamount to removing all qualifications for citizenship other than one's place of birth. Thus one can be a "native-born" American citizen and be the child of foreign parents — i.e., a putative "American" child of parents who have no allegiance to the United States.
And of course naturalized citizenship is based on the legal process of qualifying as a "newly-minted" American, regardless of place of birth or parentage, which involves swearing an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
A final thought: You just know that there's got to be something wrong with the way the Fourteenth Amendment is understood these days when you see thousands of Chinese women coming to the U.S. to have their babies — just to get the kids American "citizenship" and passports — and then going back home to China, with the kids.
Not to mention the "anchor baby" phenomenon of mothers of other nationalities who enter the U.S. to give birth, and then who stay here with the kid, who then qualifies for all kinds of public benefits (at taxpayer expense), and have greater ease of bringing their other relatives into the country because that baby was born here.
At least the Chinese mothers take themselves and their babies back home. I.e., they do not become effective wards of the State — i.e., of the taxpayer....
The issue is not the birthplace of the parents. The issue is the citizenship status of the parents at the time of the child's birth.
The dispute is that Arthur's and Rubio's parents were not both American citizens at the time of their respective child's birth.
-PJ
The fact that we are technically "citizens" rather than "subjects" has nothing to do with how that determination was made.
and substituted the common contemporary theory of Independent citizenship which happens to have been first articulated by a Swiss writer.
It was not common in American or colonial jurisprudence, where jus solis -- where you were born -- applied.
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.
English common law was based on natural law as well, as Locke and Burke would testify. More importantly, there is nothing inherently more natural or God-given about citizenship by soil versus citizenship by blood. That's the laws of man at work, not natural law
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.
All of which illustrates perfectly why your underlying argument is wrong. U.S. jurisprudence has long held that English common law as it existed at the time of independence -- being the law of the colonies at the time as well -- remained valid unless altered by statute or the Constitution. From where else do you think we got rights such as habeus corpus? All of our common law writs and actions? The Rule in Shelley's Case?
Each of these examples you gave as to rejected English law was rejected explicitly via statute or the Constitution. When we wanted to reject something in the English legal tradition, we did so expressly because of the default applicability of the common law.
But there is no express rejection of the English law of jus solis citizenship in favor of the Swiss view of "jus sanguinas" citizenship anywhere in the Constitution. We're left with a bare phrase "natural born citizen", undefined in the Constitution itself. And by operation of the default rule of American Jurisprudence at that time, that left English law, not Swiss, as the gap-filler.
Anyway, I have no desire to convince those whose opinions on this were formed because they thought it had a favorable application in Obama's case. I am simply attempting to let Rubio fans out there know that they should take any claims that he is ineligible with one big-ass helping of salt.
It is a pretty sad state of affairs when Chinese mothers, from what is still pretty close to being a Third-World country, have a better understanding of American law than the Vattel Birthers. The Chinese mothers get it-—if your kid is born in America, she or he is a American citizen, and one day, can be president.
Which post, DL? I replied to one of them, but I'm not sure it's the one you mean.
Anyhoot, I changed my mind about the possible eligibility of Rubio, based on something I recalled reading a few weeks ago. Details are at Post 148.
Forgive me for saying so, dear Squeeky, but I find that reading totally NUTZ.
What would such a understanding do to the unity of the United States, its culture, and its national security?
I suggest that the Constitution defines who are natural born citizens at the very beginning of the document.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children. Whom else was it crafted to secure?
Naturalized citizens can become a part of "We the People," and then their children can become natural born citizens.
It's right there in the first words.
The Preamble already lays out that the purpose of the Constitution was to define a country that was meant to be passed down to "our Posterity," meaning the citizen children of citizen parents.
-PJ
Sorry, but this is a delusional fantasy that I have disproven several times. A massive C&P of dicta that does not say this won't change the fact that you're wrong.
Wow, it does not say nor do this at all. The first part of the argument was that Virginia Minor claimed to be a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected this argument and explained why over the course of several paragraphs. The syllabus includes her citizenship as one of the main points of the decision. And the Wong Kim Ark decision summarizes Minor v. Happersett by recognizing that Minor was a citizen by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. Helps if you read the actual decision and take time to understand it.
It really wouldn’t do nothing to us, unless these people were grabbing welfare and benefits and stuff. Before somebody can be president, they have to go through a election and the rest of America can either vote for them or not. What some Vattle Birthers are doing is what the liberals do with gun control. Let me show you a example:
Liberal: The 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to authorized militias. If you think EVERYBODY has the right to keep and bear arms, then what happens if somebody goes bonkers and shoots a bunch of innocent people at a McDonalds or something???
See what I mean??? The Liberal is trying to go around the law and just get the result they want which is only the cops and government have guns.
The fact that a freedom, or law, may be misused has nothing to do with whether the freedom, or law, exists or not. Sooo whenever the Vattle Birthers come out with that “What if Osama Bin Laden had a kid born in America-—are you saying he could be president???”-—the answer is YES. IF he wins the election. Just like Liberals,the Vattle Birthers are trying to go around the law to get the result they want. But, there is only a stupid result if people vote stupidly.
Natural born citizen is studiously excluded from the 14th Ammendment. Naturalized or native born are different from natural born. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue 4 times. Google it. I’m tired of posting them.
You couldn’t be more wrong!
The following information comes from our government, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, and describes the three statutory types of citizenship - native born (jus solis), derived citizenship (jus sanguinis), and naturalized citizenship.
CITIZENSHIP
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
To become a citizen after birth, you must:
Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
Apply for naturalization
*****************************************
Note: all three types of the above are U.S. citizens. All may serve in the U.S.Congress, as either Representatives in the House, or as Senators in the Senate. Natural born citizen is not mentioned as it is not a type of citizenship.
Per Article I, Section 2 and 3 of the United State Constitution, Representatives and Senators shall be Citizens of the United States.
The ONLY place “natural born citizen” appears in our national laws is as an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States.
Per Article II, Section 1, clause 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.”
The eligibility requirement to be President is not the same as that for Congress. Simply being a “citizen” is not enough.
Our founders understood the difference. Here is where the definition exists in national law:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/
ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor [Minor vs. Happersett] is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that [Virginia] Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.
On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:
“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:
“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”
Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.
While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.
Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
(Note: Wordpress removed NatrualBornCitizen off its web hosting site. Political reasons are supected.)
*****************************************
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party seriously considered amending the U.S. Constitution eligibility requirement so that Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) or Arnold Schwarznegger (born in Austria) could run for President. Thank God they didn’t do that and reason prevailed.
As recently as 2006 there was a paper written by Sarah Herlihy claiming that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirment was stupid and prevented the U.S. from being part of the Globalism movement. THAT gave away the real intent of so-called Progressives; that United States sovereignty was a constraint on the establishment of a socialist Global government.
So a child born on January 2, 2011, whose parents were both naturalized on January 3, cannot be President. Had the parents been nationalized two days previously, he could. I fail to see how that distinction meaningfully impacts the unity, culture, and national security of the U.S. And frankly, someone could still have a great deal of loyalty to a foreign state and still be naturalized, so I'm not sure why we should really attach any weight at all to the naturalization of parents.
Legions of far left liberal Democrats have been doing their best to destroy this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens at birth or not.
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.