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 ...
>> “Those are interchangeable, and have been for over 200 years.” <<
.
Bullshit.
The WKA decision went to great pains to state what a NB citizen was, and then to define a “native citizen.”
A native citizen has citizenship specifically because of the location of their birth, while a natural born citizen is a citizen regardless of the country in which they may have been born, by virtue of the US citizenship of their parents. That is why it is “natural.”
Its a shame that you are too arrogant to read the learned writers of the era, they made it clear.
>> “ But you say nobody defined natural born citizen..” <<
.
Smoking dope again I see.
Your parents DO NOT have to be US Citizens.
WRONG!!!
The Constitution has..... never... been ‘amended’ to change the requirement :
That to be President of the United States of America you must be born of Parents who are Citizens of America.
This was to prevent Dual Citizenship: Thus allegiance to another Country!!
Congress has attempted several times recently to change this rulling; but, it was never passed!!
Subjects are not in any way related to citizens.
Subjects are the chattel of the sovereign, by virtue of the location of their birth, while citizens are themselves sovereign, not the posession of any other. Citizenship is alien to English Common Law; it has no understanding thereof.
Save your childish deceptive rationalizations for your irrational friends.
The 14th Amendment is part of the constitution, is it not?
Actually you are wrong on the original intent as well. Vitell's definition of Natural Born Citizen was that the citizenship of the father was controlling and the citizenship of the mother was irrelevant.
The 14th Amendment changes the definition to make anyone who is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction is a citizen at birth. Citizenship at the time of birth has always been the hallmark of Natural Born Citizen status. The key is whether the parents are subjects of the United States at the time of birth, not whether they were Citizens at the time.
Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen under the 14th Amendment. Jindal is not.
Ahhhh, Canadians.
The congress cannot ammend the constitution; only the states that created it can do that.
Birth on US soil is irrelevant to NB citizenship.
NB citizenship flows solely from parentage.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
>> “The key is whether the parents are subjects of the United States at the time of birth, not whether they were Citizens at the time.” <<
.
Jibberish!
There are no “subjects” of the US. A subject is a possession, much like a slave. We have citizens here, Aliens, Resident Aliens, and Illegal Aliens.
All aliens that have signed a contract with the immigration dept, and have a Green Card to so verify are Resident Aliens, and thus their issue are , like their parents, “under the jurisdiction” of the US. That makes them citizens under the 14th, “Native Citizens,” but not NB citizens, because NB citizenship flows solely from the parents citizenship, not from where they are born.
You say that but there is no such language in the Constitution and there are absolutely no SC cases defining NB for electability purposes the way you have. Born here, you are a citizen.
Is there any particular reason the framers would have used a less than standard definition of Natural Born?
The constitution used a term with a clear accepted meaning. If you can challenge that meaning, then not one word of the constitution is reliable, thus making the entire document void.
I’m confidant that that is the goal of all that disrespect the definition of Natural Born.
“...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.”
““As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Both from James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
““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. . . .”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
“The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“By the common law of England, which is in force in this country, and which may be assumed as also the law of all the European states, persons within the jurisdiction of the government, or limits of the territory, are either natives, or aliens. Natives are those born within the national jurisdiction; aliens are born without that jurisdiction.”
John Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, 1865
““By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. “
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866)
In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled “”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
The “only difference” between the native born and naturalized is that only the natural born citizen can become President - a clear use of NBC and native born citizen as interchangeable.
You accuse everyone else of having "emotional arguments" and your own arguments are dripping with emotion.
A lot of posters have made solid legal arguments as to why Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen. You disagree. We know that. But your arguments are dripping with the emotionality that you have accused others of using. I have used nothing more or less than the professional legal reasoning that people pay me hundreds of dollars an hour to provide. Sorry if you disagree. We can't agree on everything.
Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen in my interpretation of the Constitution. I suspect that the Supreme Court would agree with me. The only way we will know is if Rubio is elected and someone can get the case before the Supreme Court. I can tell you without resorting to any emotional arguments that that will NEVER happen.
“Subjects are not in any way related to citizens.”
Yes, well, as usual, the US Supreme Court disagrees.
>> “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives” <<
.
Horseshit!
This is the United States, not a monarchy.
The definitions of the era must be respected or we lose the protections of the entire document.
Marco please run! You’d be the huge favorite of real conservatives.
And if ‘rats say you are not eligible, then Obama is not either.
If Obama IS eligible, then YOU are too.
If you won’t flat-out-run, then please consider saying something like...
... “If Michele Bachman, or Sarah Palin ask me to be their running mate I would probably say yes”
Ah, I wasn’t familiar with him.
Now I am.
Hmm, I just noticed that Lazo’s signup date was the day Steaming was elected.
I’m sure it means nothing, though.
>> “Actually if the parents have submitted paperwork to become permanent residents, the children are Natural Born Citizens” <<
.
Complete nonsense!
If I submit an application for a class A driver’s license, am I then at that moment qualified to drive an 80 ton truck down your street without passing the eye test, diving test, and legal test?
You seem to believe that the constitution is a ‘flexible’ document (or is it Ellen Tauscher’s “little blue dress?”)
Yes, you disagree with the Supreme Court. I know that. But you don’t have the final say...
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.