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 ...
My screwup was mentally translating “naturalized” to “natural born” for some reason. Brain fart, all the way.
Not from Lech Walesa, he didn't. But you're right about RuPaul.
His mother had already become a citizen and his father was in the process, delayed only by the need to travel to support the family. In any case, he had appeared before the system (magistrate) to declare his intent.
That was all that was required by the 1790 citizenship law, iirc, 3 years resident and appearance before a magistrate to declare intentions.
If the original language is seen in the constitution, then the original process is seen in the first law passed by congress to codify that intent.
Article II was never defined. The Founders deliberately left a lot of the language vague as a compromise to strict language. Where the definition is not given and is subject to interpretation, then the intent of the founders must be discerned based upon the circumstances at the time of the drafting. Further while the 14th Amendment did not affirmatively change the definition of Article II, it did affirmatively define it, something that wasn't done in 1789. Therefore we have to assume that the definition of a citizen at birth (which is the definition that Vattel was defining in his treatise) is the same definition for a Natural Born Citizen. It is and always has been the definition of a person who is considered by the law to be a citizen by virtue of their birth and a person who does not have citizenship elsewhere at the time of birth.
One can only be a Natural Born Citizen of one country. That was the whole idea behind Vattel's thesis. Vattel defined what was a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the Laws of Nations existing in the 18th Century. The 14th Amendment defines the term in accordance with the Constitution as amended in the 19th Century.
Since the Founders did not specify a definition in perpetuity, the amendment to the Constitution effectively defined it constitutionally for the first time. Hence anyone who fits within the definition of a Citizen at the time of birth under the 14th Amendment is, by virtue of that Amendment, a Natural Born Citizen. This is not in contradiction to the intent of the framers.
The framers allowed for amendments to be put in to change the constitution or to redefine such ambiguous terms as Natural Born Citizen. The whole premise of Natural Born Citizen was to prevent dual loyalty. So if a person is born a Citizen of another country, they cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. The intent of the framers remains intact even though the definition of what is a Natural Born Citizen has been given a more specific definition than was placed into the constitution.
Under the 18th Century definition slaves were not Natural Born Citizens, but were "subjects". Under the 19th Century definition slaves were born subjects and hence were now considered Natural Born Citizens. It was a paradigm shift of sorts, but the intention of the framers remains intact.
Dual Citizenship at the time of birth precludes Natural Born Citizenship Status. That was the intent of the founders and that was not changed under the 14th Amendment.
There is no Federalist #86. Federalist #85 was the last published paper.
-PJ
Actually no, not in the way you would have us believe. In Minor v. Happersett the question before the court was not whether Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen or an naturalized citizen or native born or whatever other category you choose to create. The question was whether when the 14th Amendment granted privileges and immunities to citizens - natural born or otherwise - it included the right to vote. The court did not rule on what kind of citizenship Minor had. It ruled that citizenship of any kind did not automatically include the right to vote, and denied Minor that ability. The definition of what constituted a natural born citizen was not a question before the court, so any comments on natural born citizenship were obiter dictum.
“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.”
Hmmmm. I wonder if there could possibly be some link between you and editor-mind reader NOT reading stuff and your flawed legal theories??? :)
“If you were born in the U.S., you meet the definition. Your parents DO NOT have to be US Citizens.”
lololololol..........nope
“If not “clearly” defined....”
It has been clearly defined by Justice Grey in Minor v Happersett, and reinforced in numerious USSC rulings since.
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Significant because it is the first to define a process resulting in citizenship.
1. 2 years resident in the US
2. At least one year resident in the state applying from
3. Applying to any common law court of record
4. Prove good character
5. Take oath to support Constitution
This must be taken in light of Kentucky County, Virginia (indeed, of all of the frontier) which in 1780 was divided into Fayette, Lincoln, and Jefferson Counties, all of which became the state of Kentucky in 1792, but PRIOR to that was a part of the state of Virginia.
One of my books on methodist history includes this piece about a minister named David Haggard at about 1787. "He seems to have lived in or near burkesville, Ky., as we have in our possession a copy of the action of the County court of cumberland County, granting him license to solemnize the rites of matrimony, as a minister.." (Methodism in Kentucky, W.E. Arnold, Herald Press (1935), p 81.)
What really are the requirements of this law? Residency, acceptable reputation, and oath of allegiance.
But, as you read of this territory of the country during this time you discover how wild it was, how flooded with immigrants it was, and how the intent of the settlers really was the driving factor.
My point is simply the comparing of that time with the life and actions of Marco Rubio's father.
Agreed.
see #492
“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?”
The courts haven’t ruled on that question. WKA’s parents were here legally, with the intent to stay here.
The strongest argument against Obama would be his father was here legally, but didn’t intend to live here for the rest of his life.
WKA says:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom.”
“aliens in amity”
Aliens here in friendly relations with the government. That would include students here on a visa, but exclude those here illegally.
It also takes pains to point out the WKA’s parents were domiciled here. That would suggest someone whose parents were not planning on living here permanently (even though WKA’s parents returned to China) might not qualify. In that case, Obama would be in trouble.
However, let’s be real. The Supreme Court is not going to rule Obama ineligible. If there was even a chance of doing so, they would have taken the case prior to Obama taking office. They have made it abundantly clear by now they will not touch this issue. Therefor, I conclude that domicile is not ever going to be considered in a case like this again.
That leaves the ‘in amity’ part. I strongly believe that A) the children of illegals are NOT citizens of the USA, and B) that no court will ever rule in my favor.
That pisses me off, but what pisses me off doesn’t matter. I would be willing to donate to support a case going to trial, but I don’t see any hope of winning.
I believe the following quote would rule:
““All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
Part of that quote can also be found in WKA.
WKA also quoted Kent:
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . .
I don’t like it, but I don’t have a vote.
“in a sort of “it makes as much sense as applying Swiss law and not English law to define ‘natural born’” sort of way.”
I’ll assume that you are refering to Emerick Vittal’s Law of Nation’s (Natural Law).
Vittal’s book above is not law as you suggest in your sentence above. Vittal was a legal theorist (jurist), and his book was a well known work on legal theory in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. It has been well documented that Ben Franklin supplied 6 copies of this text for use by the delegates to the Constitutional convention.
It is illogical to assume that the delegates used the exact words of Vittal when writting the Constitution, rather than use the words of Blackstone’s Commentary on British common Law.....(which by the way is unwritten and can be best described as “traditional” or customary legal theory.) and meant to apply the British concept of “subject.”
The legal underpinnings for the government/people interface is a polar opposite in the US v Great Britin. Subjects are responsible to goverment as in Great Britin, and for much of Europe. The US struck out on new ground and made the goverment responsible to the “citizens”.....clearly a rejection of British/European legal practice.
When they wrote the Constitution the Founders established “statutary law” (written Law) and rejected customary law as practiced by their former masters the British.
Your comment defies logic, history, and the rulings of the USSC through it’s history.
We had this stuff in my business law class when we learned about contracts having to be in writing and stuff.
It would appear that Obama is a Citizen of Kenya by birth and a citizen of Indonesia by adoption. He may be a citizen of the United States by default, but clearly he has split loyalty. Has he ever renounced his citizenship in Kenya or Indonesia? I think not.
See #492
I meant to mention that Cumberland County Virginia is not in modern day Kentucky but is all the way into eastern Ky and then halfway into modern Virginia. It is probably in the neighborhood of 300 miles anyway, and in a time of terrible problems with the native american population, it was a danger time. Travel was an arduous task, so settlers floating down the Ohio to settle the region did not easily set out to attend the court in Cumberland County.
I’m guessing they had an informal system of fulfilling the obligations of the Naturalization Law of 1790 when that often was necessary. Alan Eckert’s histories contain many examples of militias raised to combat the natives.
They, too, swear an oath of allegiance. Residency, oath, good character and you’re in.
“It is illogical to assume that the delegates used the exact words of Vittal when writting the Constitution”
They didn’t. Vattel wrote, “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” That was translated as “The natives, or the indigines...” in all English editions until 1797 - 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
Only in 1797 did an edition of Vattel appear which used “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...” - translating indigenes as NBC instead of substituting the equivalent English word.
If the Founders had followed Vattel, they would have required the President be “native”, or “indigenous”, or perhaps just “natural”. Instead, they used a phrase taken from English common law.
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.