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 ...
No they haven't. At best, there have been comments made in some decisions which seem to support your claims. Those comments are defined as obiter dictum, and under the doctrine of stare decisis, comments made in dicta are not binding. So no, there is no binding legal precedent that support your definition.
I don’t see any reason for actual conservatives to call people concerned about 0bama’s eligibility/lack of same “kooks”.
Says the guy who copies and pastes as much irrelevant dicta as he can find when can't refute the specific argument that I've already proven.
And here is how the DISSENT protested that decision:
The dissent wasn't protesting the decision. Fuller was responding to a claim made in the appeal based on the lower court's decision. The majority opinion offered NOTHING that suggested anything close to what Fuller was objecting to. The meat of Fuller's actual full objection (pun intended) was that the U.S. could not override the treaty with China that prevented its subjects from becoming U.S. citizens. Gray used English common law to bolster his own argument about the sovereign rights of the U.S., ignoring that the Constitution places itself on the same legal level as international treaties.
I recommend everyone should read Wong Kim Ark thorughly, unlike Mr. Rogers has. Notice how Gray never uses the term natural-born citizen after citing and affirming the Minor definition. He could NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen, so he invented his own type of Constitutional citizenship, based on English common law and by perverting the subject clause of the 14th amendment.
I already know he, Barak H.Obama II, was born in Kenya, so the birth certificate controversy is a side issue.
Furthermore, I’m talking about national law, Squeeky, not Vatel.
When the Supreme Court in Minor vs. Happersett determined that Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents and thus a natural born citizen, they construed Article II Secion 1 for her class of citizenship. They purposefully never mentioned the 14th Amendment as it did not apply.
This determination was included in the syllabus of Minor vs. Happersett. The definition of natural born citizen is a person born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents. It is national law.
“Mr. Rogers has been beaten to a bloody pulp so many times that he is no longer sensible. He continuously leaves out the vast mountain of evidence with which he has been refuted so many times. He is in a word, Unreachable. He lives in a peculiar little world where his wishes are reality. He has a fortress of solitude unpenetrated by any point of fact. “
Odd, isn’t it. I live in my own fantasy world, yet every state, every congressman and every court agrees with me...while the great DiogenesLamp lives in the “real world” where everyone knows Obama isn’t President!
The dicta I’m referring to was binding. It’s why Gray cited it in Wong Kim Ark and acknowledged that V. Minor was declared a citizen because of being born in the country to citizen parents. Why would Gray say this if it wasn’t precedent and when there’s nothing specific in the Minor decision that says Minor was born to citizen parents??? Ponder that.
That you think is not simple shows you're simply flailing to make a point; the question is direct and indisputable - is a person born on US soil a US citizen? It's totally Constitutional, and the 14th Amendment removed ANY possible contention you can have.
Under the CORRECT interpretation of the 14th amendment, NO, The child is NOT an American citizen.
You mean under YOUR interpretation. One hundred fifty years of legal precedent at all Federal levels say you're flat out wrong. But don't let that stop you in your Quixote-esque quest!
Under the common misunderstanding of the meaning of the 14th amendment, most people think "Yes," The child IS a citizen.
And most people would be right - it's also how the Courts - including the Supreme Court - have consistently ruled.
ANY court decision you can point to that says a person born on US soil is not a US citizen? Anything at all?
You may regard the difference between "Subject" and "Citizen" as trivial, but the reality is that they are very different conditions. Subjects owe perpetual allegiance to the crown which they are not permitted to forsake. Indeed, they are instantly claimed as servants by the excuse of Jus Soli. Even then, they are not permitted to Rule England unless they are also members of the Royal Family. (Defacto Jus Sanguinus for the less astute.)
Citizens, on the other hand, are born as free people, and are not compelled to remain Americans against their will. They are not created by the proximity of their birth to an artificial boundary, but by the inherent condition of those to whom they are born. Were your theory of Jus Soli true, Slaves and Indians would have possessed the citizenship birth right.
It was not common in American or colonial jurisprudence, where jus solis -- where you were born -- applied.
Even in the subsequent application of jus solis in the colonies, it did not mean just born within lines on a map, it meant born within the community. The intent was to acquire the nature of the people among whom you lived while at an impressionable age.
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.
I disagree. Citizenship by birth is no different from the Liberal argument for Personhood "at birth." It allows for such absurdities as partial birth abortion (they claim that because the head is still inside, the child isn't "born" yet.) and Anchor babies. (People born here of parents here illegally. If you make "Person" status and "citizenship" inherent on the condition of birth, it results in all sorts paradoxial legal conditions. Apart from that, if it is "natural" law, how can Ambassador's children be exempted from this "natural" law? How can Slaves have been exempted? How can Indians have been exempted? The fact that it has exemptions at all should illustrate the artificial aspect of it.
The Argument that one's personhood status and one's citizenship are inherent in the creation of the child is a Pro-Life argument. No paradoxes, no exemptions. THAT, is natural law.
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?
I am not disputing that we kept much of English law. I admitted that much previously. We Just did not keep THIS aspect of it. Unfortunately people have been laboring under the mistaken impression that we kept this piece of it since the founding. The Attempt to push this rejected bit of British law back into American law has been persistent since the beginning and is no doubt responsible for some of the confusion regarding the issue. Read this:
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
Link: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/
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.
As the distinction between the two ONLY applies to the condition of the Presidency, and as the founders were well familiar with Vattel's (even quoted it during the convention) Definition, and even stated that they explicitly wanted to prevent foreign influence in the office of the Presidency (John Jay's Letter) why should anyone make more explicit a rejection than that which was already understood by the Delegates as the correct meaning? As I have pointed out to others, They used terms of art such as "Freedom of Speech" when they meant freedom from persecution by the Government for making a speech critical of government or officeholders. They did not specifically say this was a rejection of the English law regarding Lese-majesty, but that is exactly what it was.
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.
The founders were breaking new ground. They used Vattel as a blueprint for much of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, i've read several articles claiming the Second Amendment is the direct result of the principles of individual self defense outlined in Vattel's "Law of Nations". English law had no equivalent. You were permitted weapons by the indulgence of the crown.
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.
You mean the truth will have no practical impact on the whims of either the electorate, or the courts. Pragmatism is not principle.
And you think anyone should take you seriously when you argue something so absurd. God help us all.
And as I posted in 154, I belive the court was wrong and the definitions are in the Constitution.
PreambleWhom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-PJ
Well, what I read in that case thingy was that a person who is born in America and has two citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Then, whether a person born in America to whoever was not something that was relevant to the case. Which I guess neither was people born not in America to two citizen parents like people in the Air Force but some of my friends when I was growing up could run for president even though they were born in like Japan and Germany and stuff.
Sooo, how do you get a case that says it ISN’T going to talk about people born to whoever parents and try to make it say that it decided the issue???
Then, you have to ignore the Won Kim Ark thingy which says that there are just only two kinds of people, naturalized and born. What, is TWO the “New” Three??? Because that 2009 court said that Obama was legal and the citizenship of his parents didn’t matter.
Sooo, to be a Vattle Birther you just have to ignore all this reality, which I am just not going to do. I am going to give Obama fits about him taking 3 years to cough up a $14 birth certificate and ask why come he thinks he can fix a $14 trillion economy.
First, I don't believe you did read it because you referenced the wrong Act.
Second, the fact your parents may switch allegiance and citizenship in NO WAY changes the citizenship of the child. None. That's been consistent from the founding of this nation. IF your parents are not citizens when you're born - then you're not a citizen either. But once you're a US citizen - even as a minor - no one can take that citizenship from you save an act of the Courts/Congress (treason) or your own volition.
You simply do not understand citizenship nor law.
I have linked for you the text of the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. You fail to see the subtler connection to the Cable act,
The Cable Act was REPEALED in 1936. Why you insist on using it to make some obtuse, illogical, and unfounded contention with citizenship is beyond me - especially for anyone born after 1936 - when the Act was repealed.
Simple question: is a person born on US soil a US citizen? Yes or no? Your refusal to answer that question is damning of your contention.
Post 75. I mentioned two documents that indicated the founders would accept a child as a natural born citizen if the fathers became a resident/citizen.
-PJ
You are really out there.
It’s the classic “I read it on teh Intarwebs and it supports a position I wish was true so it must be right!” syndrome.
Just takes ONE Court decision saying a person born on US soil - but of foreign parents - is not a natural born citizen. That Court decision - no matter how many times they spin Minor or Ark - just doesn’t exist.
He even tried to tattle on you about your personal life - when someone gets that desperate that they feel the requirement to “disclose” personal information about another, it’s clear they are just flailing at anything to try to get some sort of “win”...
Absolutely great point!
OH, I’m sorry. Did somebody die and make YOU the King of Absurd or something, and YOU get to decide what is absurd and not??? Because YOU can’t even read the law stuff and get it right. Remember???
So There!!!
Why? Can you point to a place in the Constitution where it states the requirement for parentage of a natural born citizen? Can you point to an actual Court decision that states what a natural born citizen is?
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.