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 ...
It says that all those born in or naturalized in the United States are citizens of these United States.
Once again - either born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen - consistent with the two subdivisions of US citizenship mentioned in the Constitution.
You are correct about this. The Court will declare that an illegitimate president does not cause sufficient injury to the individual filing the suit as to constitute a justifiable standing to sue. They WILL NOT argue the merits of the case. They will put their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...."
You're pointing out that the courts will not allow a discussion does not help your argument at all. If they thought YOUR argument was correct, they wouldn't be terrified of allowing a discussion of it.
He kept the truth from being discovered by lying about his fathers age and date of naturalization. It was only discovered this last year that his father WAS still a foreigner when he was born. Chester Arthur got away with it because he kept the truth covered up. He was NOT a natural born citizen.
his parents came after cuba was no longer an american protectorate.
but, i’ll keep an open mind.
no doubt the issue will arise again and more arguments will be made.
The Minor definition of natural born citizen was given to satisfy what the term NBC means in Art II, Sec. I. Here's the passage from the previous paragraph:
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," ..
The court said it was not necessary to solve the doubts about children born to parents without reference to their citizenship. They did this because Minor met their definition of NBC. The court did not suggest that the citizenship of all persons born in the country could be resolved without having citizen parents, only that they didn't need to try. The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed the Minor legal finding on NBC some 20+ years later, when it said:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
Notice that in affirming the citizenship declaration from Minor, the court lists BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. There would be no reason to do this unless it was critical to the decision. If the court, OTOH, believed that only jus soli mattered, there's no point in mentioning that V. Minor was born of citizen parents. Second, the Minor decision never specifically says that Minor was born of citizen parents, so Justice Gray had to have read this into the decision when he reviewed it. Again, why would he do that it if it were not specified and not binding??
What history? The strange rubric of parsed definitions that the Birthers hang their hat on? Minor vs. Happersett has nothing to do with Natural Born. It is a Womans Suffrage case. The Natural Born comments were in passing and had no real bearing on the case itself.
Feel free to keep heading down that discredited path. Almost no one is with you anymore. That is what failure brings about. If your argument on Natural Born was correct, Obummer would not be President.
"Native born" means you were born in the territory. For Example, Indians were "native born" but were not citizens. "Natural Born" means you are born as a citizen. (To Parents who were already citizens.)
Prior to 1922 the terms meant almost the same thing. In those days, the citizenship of the couple was defined by the man. If a foreign woman married an American male, she instantly became an American Citizen. If an American Woman married a foreign male, she instantly became a foreign citizen. This resulted in ALL CHILDREN being born to parents of the same nationality.
This all Changed with the Cable act (1922) and was extended by the "Women's Citizenship act" (1934). Women gained the ability to pass on "citizenship" on their own, and Men lost the ability to automatically naturalize their foreign wives. For the first time in this Nation's history, it became possible to have children born of split allegiances.
Such children were no longer "natural born citizens", they became "split allegiance" citizens. This is when "native born" diverged distinctly from "natural born."
They did a swell job with Roe v Wade and Kilo v New London. As far as most people are concerned and the Constitution, if you were born here, you are a citizen.
This isn't entirely accurate. The court in Minor recognized citizenship at birth as defined by naturalization law:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
The court divided citizens by birth into at least two classes. One who met its defintion of NBC (born in the country of citizen parents), and one born in the country without reference to the citizenship of parents.
As to this [the latter] class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [NBC}..
Under that statement, there are clearly two classes of citizens falling under the so-called subdivision of "born a citizen." Of course, none of this applied to the 14th amendment, because the court said persons born in the country to citizen parents didn't need the 14th amendment to become citizens. Thus, this again recognizes a separate class of citizen by birth.
That’s my take as well - he was a citizen by virtue of his birth - he is a natural born citizen.
The Constitution only contemplated two subdivisions of US citizenry - those who are citizens through the natural act of being born and those that must be naturalized.
The Cable act did not Change the Constitution. The 19th Amendment did that. The Courts interpreted the 19th Amendment broadly to include other rights for women not previously expressed in law. Congress enacted the Cable act to bolster the Court's rulings on equality for women, under the "penumbra" of the Spirit invoked by the 19th amendment.
It had the defacto result of CREATING a new subclass of "born" citizen. Where before it was impossible to have a citizen of Split allegiance, the passage of the cable act MADE it possible. Prior to this time, Citizenship of a married couple was defined by the Husband's citizenship. Prior to 1922, ALL children were born either "natural born" or "Foreign". There was no "in-between".
So you don’t think the question needs to be decided by the SC?
No one should be allowed to post on this subject until they actually hear the oral Argument where the Justices talk about this very subject. Listen to the whole thing and try to get it through your head that this is not settled law.
It is a very complicated issue and one that is not resolved.
There is ONE definition but it MAY NOT be the ONLY definition.
You know, that’s a bummer. While my father was naturalized by the time I was born, my mother was not yet a citizen. I was born here, and always believed I could become President some day. If course, that would never happen under any circumstances anyhow, but it was cool thinking that one day, I could be......
I don’t know how you could disqualify him, when the imposter in chief currently was born to a father who was not an American citizen ever.
This is an argument I would consider. It would have to be nailed down better, but it is at least a plausible legal approach.
Another argument I would consider is to assert that the founders would regard the children of foreign males born in America as "natural born citizens" if the foreign fathers became citizens eventually. I know of two documents that support this interpretation. The "Naturalization Act of 1790" and the Virginia Declaration of "Who shall be deemed a Citizen of the Commonwealth" from 1782.(I might be off a year or two.) Both of these documents indicated that they would accept the children of Foreigners *IF* the Fathers themselves became citizens, even after the fact.
Rubio would qualify under THAT legal argument.
Ummm - no. The Cable Act said that if a female US citizen marries a foreign man AND lives abroad she could lose her citizenship. It said nothing about creating a 3rd category of citizen - either you were a citizen or you lost your citizenship. No new status created.
Additionally, the Cable Act was repealed in 1936 - well before Rubio or Obama was born, or even their parents were born.
Natural born citizens do not need to be naturalized.
The Naturalization act of 1790 said that the child of a US citizen father (one parent) born overseas (not in country) was a natural born citizen.
Obviously the definition of natural born citizen, circa 1790, as understood by our founders wasn't that of two citizen parents and born in country.
Neither do they create a third category.
One is either born a citizen and thus “considered as (a)natural-born citizen” or one is in need of Naturalization.
There are two possible legal arguments which would qualify Rubio, and Perhaps Jindal as well. See my post above.
But later split by the 19th amendment in conjunction with the Cable Act passed by Congress into two subcategories of "natural" and "split allegiance" "born" citizens.
“The Court specifically did NOT define “natural born citizen”.
That statement is correct inasmuch as the court found the definition was not in doubt.
The court looked at two features of parental citizenship. The first:
“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.”
The second dealt with parental non-citizenship. “As to this (second) class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” The language you then highlighted applies to the second doubt and is not relevant to the first.
What possible rationale can be used to argue that the founders, who had just concluded a bloody struggle with England, would allow those of non-citizen parents to hold the highest office in the nation?
Would you not want your attorney to cite this case as legal precedence for the NBC requirement?
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.