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 ...
To still be debating eligibility is ridiculous at this point.
And yet here you are. You both prove and disprove your own point.
GEEZE! You're doing it again! You are making me feel dumb Vicariously!
No. Here's the Minor citation:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Under the SCOTUS definition, as with Vattel, "native" is the primary term. Therefore, under this (and Vattels') definition of native (i.e., native born), one must be born in the country to citizen parents. Natural-born is the same, so technically native-born = natural-born, but BOTH require citizen parents as defined by the Supreme Court.
I saw the BWAHAHAHAH thing, but that was as much as I read. As soon as I see it’s from you, I ignore it.
I've seen "native born" being applied to describe the set of people born on the land, without any consideration whatsoever to the citizenship or allegiance of their parents, hence my confusion.
It might be, but my point is that the Supreme Court gave a definition that shows no distinction between these terms and that BOTH are defined by having citizen parents. It's no coincidence, IMO, that Justice Gray used neither term to define the citizenship for Wong Kim Ark as he said was imparted via the 14th amendment.
That the issue has not come up within your lifetime is the result of there not having been a candidate about which there were doubts in your lifetime. The issue in fact was a qualifier on two previous Occasions. Woodrow Wilson's election, and Chester Arthur's Presidency. That you are unaware of these previous cases is unsurprising. I have found "anti-birthers" to be usually very uninformed about the topic they urge everyone not to waste time discussing.
Charles Evan Hughes was the Republican Nominee in the Election against Woodrow Wilson. A Democrat lawyer (Breckenridge Long) pointed out at the time that he could not be President because his father was British. He wrote and circulated an essay challenging Hughes on this very basis. He likewise vowed to sue if Hughes won the election. No doubt he would have been denied "standing."
Here is a link to a copy of Breckenridge Long's Essay. Learn what you are talking about!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
Yeah, they had "Vattel Birthers" way back in 1916. Who would have thought they were so diabolical?
It's a waste of time for someone of your mental capacity, but here is a link anyway. (Charles Evan Hughes was the Republican Nominee for President in 1916, narrowly losing to Woodrow Wilson.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
If Scalia believes that, then my opinion of his legal mind has dropped considerably. Words change meanings over time and it is imperative that in interpreting a statute of a provision of the Constitution that the reviewing court must determine as best as possible the intent of the drafters utilizing the contemporaneous discussions surrounding the drafting and the passage of the provisions and further they must use the definitions of words contemporaneous with the general definitions of the words at the time the provision was passed.
Words must be given their original intent and any attempt to give a modern definition to an archaic word or expression would result in a misinterpretation of the statute or provision in question.
Do you have any specific reference where Scalia made such an idiotic remark?
Either a mistake in meaning or a mistake in understanding on your part. No one is suggesting that a candidates PARENTS have to be "natural born citizens." The PARENTS can be naturalized citizens. They just have to be plain old citizens when the child is born.
His citizenship must be a characteristic of his nature, not in accordance with whatever artificial boundary he happens to be born within.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
Exactly right.
It is bait to draw me into a discussion of how changing the citizenship of the mother affects the citizenship of the child. That is not the point, that is an irrelevant side issue. I have told you that it is an irrelevant side issue, and you have persisted in making that the focus of your argument. The point is that split citizenship was unknown during the founding era AND the subsequent 14th amendment era.
And thanks for the implicit admission of your error. Calling names and running away from the point is great confirmation of your error. Second greatest such admission on the Internet, second only to Godwin's law.
The Dog chases a car and thinks it is running; frightened away by the barking no doubt. :)
Were slaves considered persons? Nope - they were exempt considered property, not people. Chattel, just commodities to be bought, sold and traded as needed. Nice try, though.
Are you so dense as to not comprehend the significance of this point? They WERE considered people. No one ever thought a slave was not a person. They just didn't have legal rights because they were slaves. Some slaves were manumitted and became citizens. THEY passed on their citizenship to their offspring, but their enslaved brethren could not do this. Why? It was because they did not have the characteristic that made it possible. CITIZENSHIP. Those children of former slaves were themselves legally CITIZENS.
And of course we've since had the 14th Amendment (those pesky Amendments again) - and since that IS part of the Constitution, and has been for about 150 years (well before the great, great grandparents of Rubio or Obama were even born), they are natural born citizens by virtue of birth on US soil.
The 14th amendment was created to make Citizens of Freed Slaves. It "naturalized" the slaves en masse. It was not created to repeal article II or make children born of foreigners eligible.
You just don't want to answer the question directly - because doing so will show you to be a liar or a fool - and either one sucks to be you!
Pot, meet kettle. You have yet to address the subject of the non-existance of dual citizens prior to the 20th century, regardless of how many times I have attempted to steer you back to it.
No, I am saying the subsequent result of the 19th amendment was to create conditions which blurred the original meaning of Article II citizenship.
Prior to the 19th amendment, American women married to Foreign males gave birth to children of foreign allegiance. Foreign Women married to American males were automatically naturalized and became American citizens upon their marriage to an American male.
That all changed when women became able to pass on their citizenship. Prior to that time, citizenship of the couple and child was entirely determined by the man.
If the mother's citizenship changes, that does not - in any way - change the citizenship of a child. Pure and simple. NO ONE can take your citizenship from you, except by an act of the Courts on conviction of treason. You don't like that, though...
ou have yet to address the subject of the non-existance of dual citizens prior to the 20th century, regardless of how many times I have attempted to steer you back to it.
You've NEVER MENTIONED THAT at all to me... You simply are irrational - you jump around when faced with an obstacle, you tattle on others, you have no ability to admit your errors.
With representatives like you, it's no wonder so few give birthers any credence of legitimacy...
It is comments like this that make me urge people to waste no further time in judging this person's competence on this issue. That a modern day court should be regarded as a better indicator of what the founders meant than the founder's themselves is indicative of an intellect not worth awaking.
Bushpilot1, have you seen the movie Idiocracy? It is hilarious. I think this line above was used in the movie. That and "Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator: It's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes."
If you haven't seen it, I urge you to run! don't walk, down to the local rental place and get a copy. It will enlighten you as to some of the denizens of the intertubes.
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.