Posted on 11/01/2011 11:14:02 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
"Birthers cite an 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett, in which the court used the term "natural-born citizen" to refer to people born in the United States born to U.S.-citizen parents."
"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law Professor Lawrence Solum. But, he added, "The much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural-born citizen."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
"What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." "
Solum has done the "anti-birthers" a disservice. To acknowledged that there is any merit whatsoever in the "citizen parents" requirement, puts the "anti-birthers" into the position of demanding a weaker standard over a stronger one, rather than arguing that no such standard ever existed in the first place. In essence, he has shown their arguments to be false, and intentional (or perhaps ignorant) misdirections.
This is bad news for those who feel a candidate need barely creep across the minimalist threshold of tolerability to lead them.
Better people, demand better people.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
Justia’s CEO, Tim Stanley’s LinkedIn site....notice the Groups and Associations: Obama For America ‘08.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstanley
He was born by c-section?
That argument, made by many FReepers as well, fails because it would allow US-born anchor babies whose parents were illegal aliens eligible to be president. I doubt this is what the founders intended at all. There was a very specific reason for the "natural born" language in the supreme law of the land.
You are correct. But the Founders didn’t foresee the 14th Amendment, a terribly flawed piece of law.
The flaw of the 14th Amendment is the same flaw that exist within the entire constitution and that is that judicial activist read in to the amendment that which they wish to find there.
That argument, made by many FReepers as well, fails because it would allow US-born anchor babies whose parents were illegal aliens eligible to be president. I doubt this is what the founders intended at all. There was a very specific reason for the "natural born" language in the supreme law of the land.
I routinely cite the case of Rogers v Bellei to disprove the "born" argument. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian Father and an American Mother. He was an American citizen at birth because congress passed a law declaring the offspring of a single American parent to be a "citizen." Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to meet residency requirements.
My point in bringing this up, is that a citizen born to a single American citizen (such as Bellei) is not a "natural born citizen" (in the meaning of article II) because a natural born citizen would not lose his citizenship for failure to meet a residency requirement. The only difference between Bellei and Obama is that Obama can claim 14th amendment citizenship *IF* he really was born in this country. Still not "natural born citizenship" but it is better than what Bellei had.
Anyway, the current title of this thread is not what I wrote when I created it. It has been changed somehow. I had no intention of getting involved in the Rubio discussion, I only meant to point out that Lawrence Solum did not believe the two citizen parents argument was crazy.
True, but the authors of the 14th should have known enough to specifically say “This applies to former slaves and Indians ONLY.” Then again, they couldn’t foresee the wretched villainy of Ted Kennedy and his band of Democrat demons.
ineligibility bump
DiogenesLamp wrote: “I routinely cite the case of Rogers v Bellei to disprove the ‘born’ argument. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian Father and an American Mother. He was an American citizen at birth because congress passed a law declaring the offspring of a single American parent to be a ‘citizen.’”
In one of the very few cases where a real court has spoken to Article II eligibility, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California cited that very case, Rogers v Bellei. Markham Robinson petitioned for a preliminary injunction to remove Panamanian-born John S. McCain III from the ballot. In order to rule, the Court assessed the likelihood Robinson winning on the merits, and cited Rogers v Bellei in the context:
“Article II states that ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970).” [Robinson v. Bowen]
The Court doesn’t seem to agree with DiogenesLamp’s interpretation of Rogers v. Bellei. Furthermore, of McCain’s status the Court wrote, in part:
“Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”
That is not some anti-birther. That’s how the law and the precedents played in a real court, before a real judge. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?
Fox News Bill O'Reilly is not a natural born citizen. Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Chinese born in the US are not natural born citizens. The list goes on and on. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution. The Framers placed this type class of citizen into a Kind. If you are not a part of this Kind you are a foreigner to the Framers. IMHO the 14th Amendment created citizens but could not make a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is not created by law. The Framers believed they were descendants of the Anglo Saxons race.
bushpilot1 proclaimed: “Fox News Bill O’Reilly is not a natural born citizen. Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Chinese born in the US are not natural born citizens. The list goes on and on. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.”
Talk about missing the point...
Our First Amendment allows you to pass any judgements you like. I’m not trying to take that freedom away. The inside of your own head is yours to rule.
I tend to emphasize what *real* courts have decided. On the point at issue here, a real court had cited the same case that the O.P. cited, but the real court utterly refuted the O.P’s interpretation. No hard feelings — courts frequently refute my opinions too; when it happens I usually just accept that I don’t always get my way.
If dealing with reality is not your thing, well, feel free to enjoy your authority over the inside of your own head. My points tend to be about reality — real cases — real judges and real courts. Birthers tend to avoid the reality thing.
The laws of Nature exist. You cant fool mother nature. America is not his country. Kenya is. America is just the dirt where the Kenyan prince was born, just as Vattele had described when documenting what a Natural Born Citizen is.
Human nature has not changed in a million years, and it will not for the next million. I was born to two US citizens, and would not dare call Ireland my home country. However, my daughter was born in the USA to a foreign citizen. I could easily accept her describing a foreign state as her home country. It is.
Incredibly, I personally know people who live in the USA that do not allow their American born children to speak English, and bring them back to the home country, regularly. They have been born here, raised here, and do not consider themselves to be American. They are simply here for the benefits. Like Obama, They believe they are above us. They mock and disparage America in front of their children. These are Natural born citizens? I say, Hell no.
Sometimes, a court decision is in fact refusing to accepting reality and truth. Like Obama, Many people born here have no regard for America. It's not their home country. Putting one in the oval office is crazy.
To some extent, true. However, had the authors made it impossible to miss-translate, the court would have been much curtailed in it's mischief. The 1866 civil rights act was far clearer on the issue than was the subsequent 14th Amendment.
“Article II states that ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970).” [Robinson v. Bowen]
The Court doesn’t seem to agree with DiogenesLamp’s interpretation of Rogers v. Bellei. Furthermore, of McCain’s status the Court wrote, in part:
You have presented a non-sequitur. Nothing in the cited court example contradicts my point. A "born" citizen, is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." Bellei was obviously a "born" citizen, but not a "natural born citizen."
That is not some anti-birther. That’s how the law and the precedents played in a real court, before a real judge. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?
As I mentioned, I do not see where the court even touched upon the point I made by citing Rogers v Bellei, but apart from that, I do not worship the court. They are not my god, though they may be yours. A court is not infallible, nor do I treat anything they say as if they were, ESPECIALLY those Ignorant courts of California.
I have a simple rule. If something is wrong and stupid, I treat it as if it is wrong and stupid, even if it is said by a court.
A "real" court decided Roe v Wade and Kelo. That is all that needs to be said for their legitimacy regarding matters of fact.
Let me try to make this clear. It is my intent to educate the public, then FORCE the courts into complying with the correct interpretation of the law. *I* don't CARE what they say, if it is in contradiction to what is true and correct. I do not believe in a "living" constitution. I believe that misinterpreting constitutional principles is malfeasance, and that courts which do so are enemies of the nation, and therefore need to be thrown out of power.
The people should not TOLERATE them.
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.