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 ...
I don’t even read Mr. Rogers, except perhaps when his message is really short. Even then, I usually just ignore it. I wish we could get a Mr. Rogers filter.
“While you’re at it why don’t you point out a case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States that says that “native born citizen” and the phrase used in Article II “natural born citizen” are interchangeable. “
I have cited where they use it interchangeably. There is no reason for a specific case to generate a ruling over terms, when the courts ALL understand them already. Remember, YOU are the one pushing a view no court has ever agreed with.
“Further the extensive discussion that you refer to is about natural born “subjects” not about natural born citizens in the context that is the question before the court of the Fourteenth Amendment”
Nope. Sections 2 & 3 specifically discuss the meaning of NBS as being the key to understanding the meaning of NBC. I know I won’t convince you of that, but I’ve posted the text on this thread for anyone to read for themselves. Again, my understanding - that WKA dealt with the meaning of natural born citizen - is accepted by every state, every congressman and every court.
Here is a link for anyone wanting to read the actual decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
I know you don’t agree, but posting the text again won’t help you.
“And frankly I find that Marshall in The Venus in concurence carries more weight...”
Um...are you aware of what The Venus was about?
“This is the case of a vessel which sailed from Great Britain with a cargo belonging to the respective claimants, as was contended, before the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain was or could have been known by the shippers. She sailed from Liverpool on 4 July, 1812, under a British license, for the port of New York and was captured on 6 August, 1812, by the American privateer Dolphin and sent into the District of Massachusetts, where the vessel and cargo were libeled in the district court...On this ground it is that the courts of England have decided that a person who removes to a foreign country, settles himself there, and engages in the trade of the country furnishes by these acts such evidence of an intention permanently to reside there, as to stamp him with the national character of the state where he resides. “
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
Yes, it dealt with INTERNATIONAL LAW. And Vattel was a writer on that subject, aka ‘the law of nations’.
But Vattel has NEVER been the rule for citizenship in the USA, since Vattel would require two citizen parents for someone to be a citizen - and that is consistent with Swiss law, but not US law.
“Nor do I see what is “poor” about the translation of Vattel that the Framers used.”
Well, they translated indigenes as ‘natural born citizen’, when the French phrase for NBS/NBC is ‘sujets natural’. (IIRC on the spelling).
Of course, they could have simply transliterated indigenes, since the English word for it is indigenous.
Further, the Founders did NOT us a translation saying NBC, since the first edition of Vattel to use that phrase was published in 1797 - 10 years AFTER the Constitution.
Oh so very true, P-Marlowe!
Yes, a citation please Bruce Campbells Chin re: Scalia's "idiotic remark."
[Somehow this doesn't sound like Justice Scalia at all. So — where's your "proof?"]
So at the time of his birth, both of Rubio's parents were "subjects" of the United States (not Citizens, but subjects) and therefore Marco Rubio was born a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the provisions of the 14th amendment (subject to the jurisdiction thereof).
This is a legal theory that has some merit, though I am not sure I like the part about equating 14th amendment citizenship to Article II "natural born citizen" status. There is some evidence to indicate that the founders would support as "natural born citizens" the children of Foreigners that established an intent to become Americans, but I would like to see more evidence that this was universally accepted before I salute it.
It is still the best stab and justifying Rubio's eligibility that I have yet seen. D@mn good theory.
“I’d drop this particular line of argument, if I was you.”
You are not me.
“”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, S: 1.”
The only difference between what? Between being native born and being a naturalized citizen. Only they then use the phrase NBC instead of native born, so the two are synonyms and equivalent.
Try it in this context:
“There are two dogs - a German Shepherd, and a Collie. The only difference is that the GSD is bigger.”
Now, is GSD = German Shepherd? Yes. Is NBC = native born? Yes.
Rubio was born nearly 11 years AFTER his parents sought asylum in the US.
It says:
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization...Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
Rubio is either born under the jurisdiction of the United States, or he needs to be brought under it “by being naturalized”. He either is a NBC, or a naturalized citizen - and he is not the latter. So he is either a NBC, or not a citizen at all.
Again, YOU don’t have to believe me. Every court does.
It is a point that I am interested in finding supporting data for or against.
Directly under that, you assert that the court meant "there is no difference."
The logical connection between the two doesn't follow, to most readers.
But you are right, you aren't me.
Egg all over my face, indeed.
I found this interesting: http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-marco-rubio-is-natural-born-citizen.html
I agree that Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, but your post seems to leave open a big dilemma.
Based on your interpretation are the children of illegal immigrants or the children of foreign students on student visas Natural Born Citizens?
They are clearly citizens of the country of their parents' origin but are they ALSO Natural Born Citizens of the United States?
Can a Natural Born Citizen of the United States ALSO be a Natural Born citizen of the country of their parent's origin?
Did not the founders intend that there be no dual loyalty for the Commander in Chief?
I would point out that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to slaves, not re-write the rules for Article II eligibility. If you are arguing that the 14th amendment definition meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is consistent with the founders original intent and understanding, then I am open to proof regarding that, but if you are suggesting that it redefines Article II, then I have to disagree.
Have you ever traveled to a foreign country? What were your feelings about the country while you were in it? Did you feel any need to participate in its governmental processes, or were you simply a consumer of their local services, such as mailing letters or paying sales taxes in their shops and restaurants?
Did you feel obliged to follow their laws? Did you feel that you were persona non grata? Did you feel that their laws didn't apply to you?
Did you feel that the US Constitutional rights granted to you as a citizen still applied to you in the foreign country? Did you feel that you still had your 1st amendment protections in the foreign land?
Did you feel the need to engage in their political debates or express a favorite party or candidate in their parliament, or did you not care?
Were you a foreign resident in another country, where you paid income taxes to the foreign government?
I'm not challenging you in any way by asking these questions. You do not have to answer them. I'm posing these questions from the perspective of a USA citizen abroad. So reverse that, and now ask how an alien in the United States might answer these questions.
Foreigners who reside in the United States still pay 16th amendment income taxes. Foreigners in the United States still have Bill of Rights protections, including freedom of speech, assembly, religion, unreasonable search and seizure, due process and speedy trial, etc. They have access to Article III judicial processes.
They just do not have Article I representation in Congress, and cannot participate in the Article II choosing of the President.
-PJ
“Yes, a citation please Bruce Campbells Chin re: Scalia’s “idiotic remark.” “
The remark would not be idiotic. The drafters of an amendment have no authority over the meaning because they have no power to adopt the amendment.
That power rests in the states. If the states that vote for an amendment had a different understanding of a term than what the drafters did, then it would be the intent of the states that matters.
In most cases, there should be no conflict. But, for example, suppose the Founders had sat around a table (there were only 5 involved) and decided that NBC meant what Vattel wrote. However, the new states were using NBC as interchangeable with the previous natural born subject, so unless someone TOLD them otherwise, their intent in voting for it would be what they understood. Secret handshakes would not count.
However, it is also true that the courts look at the actual words passed and approved. For example, if the ‘intent’ was to make ex-slaves citizens, but the words say “everyone”, then the courts must use “everyone”, and not try to read into the text something that isn’t there.
It is up to the drafters and the voters to make sure the words say what they mean.
Here in Arizona, a case has come up over the words in a referendum passed in 2000. The words specify that “available funding” will be spent, but the drafters now claim they meant ‘funding will be made available’.
The courts, so far, have ruled that available funding means funding that is made available, not that funding MUST be provided. BTW - the actual phrase was found in a page of small text. The ballot wording showed no state funding would be used...so there was deception, IMHO, when the ballot passed. But the courts use the text of the law, not the one sentence version provided on the actual ballot.
Sounds like another opinion to me. Until the SC decides, I don’t think it matters.
I am aware of that. Plenty of time to have made known their intentions of becoming citizens if they were going to. That it took so long argues against their intent to be citizens, which argues against Rubio's "natural born status" even under the theory that the founders were indulgent to the idea of children born of foreigners being "natural born citizen"(s).
“The court said “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President.” That statement directly says there is a difference.”
It helps when one reads BOTH sentences, not just one.
”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, S: 1.”
OK, what does “the only difference” refer to? It refers to what precedes it: the only difference between a native born and a naturalized person is...what? That the natural born citizen can become President.
And this is well established - the only difference between the rights and abilities of a naturalized citizen and one born a citizen is that the latter can run for President. In all other ways, a naturalized citizen is equal.
Thanks for proving me right. The word they used was "sources" not "categories" as you misinterpreted earlier.
Rubio is either born under the jurisdiction of the United States, or he needs to be brought under it “by being naturalized”.
I already addressed this. If his parents were exiles, then they met the jurisdiction condition of owing no allegiance to any alien power (from the paragraph previous to the one you requoted). As exiles, they own no allegiance to the their previous country. As accepted in the new country, then they are "completely subject to their political jurisdiction" of the new country.
He either is a NBC, or a naturalized citizen - and he is not the latter.
Sorry, but you're trying to pull a fast one. This has NOTHING to do with NBC. It's only about 14th amendment citizenship by birth, which the court distinguished from NBC. The court clearly said it was referring to the 14th amendment because it settled doubts about those who might be citizens at birth. Remember, there's NO doubts about NBC. For other types of citizenship at birth (Minor's "second" class) there are doubts. These are the doubts and questions that Elk said were being settled under the 14th. Second, your own source fails because it mentions that persons can become citizens, not by naturalization but "collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” Force of treaty is only an example. The INA contains acts of collective naturalization and citizenship by birth that are not defined by the 14th amendment (note: these are obviously not examples of natural born citizenship). For example: 301 part B grants citizenship to Indian tribe members at birth who the Elk decision said were NOT affected by the 14th amendment.
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.