Posted on 01/27/2012 10:02:09 AM PST by Danae
I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.
Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:
Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”
Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”
(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)
The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.
Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.
According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.
It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.
Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.
Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?
Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.
Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.
Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.
The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.
Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
[For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.]
Then you haven’t read the British Law as it pertains to citizenship and illegitimate children at the time of Obama’s birth.
Wait, I am not sure what you are arguing. If you are arguing that Obama is not qualified just because his father is a British citizen that is a different argument than Obama being a British citizen.
I am not sure which one you are arguing.
Obama is not a British Citizen if Sr was married to someone else.
David, the only ones who constitutionally become citizens immediately upon birth are those who are natural born. All others are by statute because the Constitution, in the area of citizenship, only enumerated the power of naturalization to Congress. Thus ALL statute citizenship is naturalization. By parents signing the govt forms for a child born abroad, they are giving consent to the govt to legally naturalize their child as an American citizen.
Now, if there happened to come forward a child born to American parents in a country who's laws specifically hold to “jus sanguinis” without respect to “jus soli” and the parents would refuse to sign anything because under the laws of nations, their child had no other allegiance but that of the American parents, then that would be a case I would most enjoy following and getting behind. A child can not be born without affiliation and according to the laws of nations, it is the parents affiliation that determines the child's.
David, you are missing the fact that Wong Kim Ark REJECTED Vattel.
Common Law Doctrine is the authority as it pertains to citizenship. SCOTUS ruled the the 14th Amendment was just declaratory.
One Court of Appeals had used WKA to declare that Obama is a natural born citizen.
What you need is a Court of Appeals to say Obama is not eligible and that will get the case before SCOTUS and give them a chance to get rid of Wong Kim Ark
HIGHLY doubt that happens.
ask yourself ... how do SCOTUS decisions get overturned? Do the cases start at the SCOTUS or do they begin their journey at the local level? I also never said a lower court overturned a SCOTUS ruling. What I said is that SCOTUS said that precedent is merely opinion, it is not law, it merely guides the courts in interpreting the law and if the opinion is erroneous, then it subject to repeal. It just takes the right case coming from the lower courts to do it and a SCOTUS with the gonads to take it up and actually hear it, not avoid it.
Therefore, are lower courts BOUND to follow Stare Decisis? NO! Not when the opinion of the Court is in conflict with the US Constitution.
Obama’s own campaign website stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his citizenship at birth thus this is an argument that is totally off the debate table as there is no argument from the Obama camp on it. They wear it proudly.
The Indiana court which you refer to said NOTHING about Obama’s citizenship in it’s decision. It was an after the fact statement by the judge where WKA was stated. After the fact is not a part of the final ruling, it is merely a personal opinion of one judge and does not hold any weight of law, though it does hold quite a bit of influence.
The argument is not off the table. It is one , in fact, that some of us have wondered might have secretly been on the table for some time.
Thus the recent info out there about him being born to a single parent. Thus the words in his book about the mystery of his mother’s wedding.
Obama can’t change the law in Britain as it applies to his citizenship. He NEVER HAD British citizenship if he was born a bastard in the US. That was the law.
I wonder about that too.
I certainly don’t agree with your assessment
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
There are only two ways to overturn a Supreme Court case.
Amendment to Constitution.
SCOTUS overturning it.
In 1997 SCOTUS overturned Aguilar with Agostini.
It said this:
“We do not acknowledge, and we do not hold, that other courts should conclude our more recent cases have, by implication, overruled an earlier precedent. We reaffirm that “[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas, supra, at 484. Adherence to this teaching by the District Court and Court of Appeals in this litigation does not insulate a legal principle on which they relied from our review to determine 238*238 its continued vitality. The trial court acted within its discretion in entertaining the motion with supporting allegations, but it was also correct to recognize that the motion had to be denied unless and until this Court reinterpreted the binding precedent.”
Show me the case that says a lower court doesn’t have to follow SCOTUS.
LOL
I believe that Obama is not qualified because his father was a British citizen.
I am quite aware of how SCOTUS rulings are overturned and you obviously haven't read me earlier posts on this thread regarding this specific subject matter. You also need to get your head out of court cases and actually go listen the the ones who write those opinions. C-Span is loaded with debate forums between the justices that are held each year at law campuses across the country.
It sounds to me like you are subscribing to the Living Constitution ideology which frequently turns into Judicial Activisim.
If SCOTUS violates the Constitution the only way around it is an Amendment. Otherwise, their decisions are BINDING until they say they ARE NOT binding.
2) Obama has never denied that British law applied to him when he was born. Quite the opposite, his campaign embraced. Thus the reason I said it was not a topic of debate as debate is an argument for opposing views and Obama does not oppose the fact that he had British citizenship at birth.
3) When an official govt doc lists a father and the father in official govt docs claims the child as his, the fact of marriage or single becomes irrelevant. International law is funny. And while the book offers that there is no proof that the parents were or weren't married, there are official court records and federal documents that state otherwise. Thus under the eyes of the law, the mother might have been single is a moot point once the daddy was listed and he took responsibility for fathering the child.
Show me where in the US Constitution that the SCOTUS has final authority & say on all laws. I dare you!!!
You are the one who is adhering to a “Living Constitution” theory by thinking SCOTUS is the final authority on law. We the poeple are the final authority, thus saith the US Constitution.
You are not understanding the point.
It doesn’t matter what his book says. I brought that up to show that Obama may have been laying the groundwork in case the issue came up.
It doesn’t matter whether Obama said he was a British Citizen.
HE can not change British law.
British Law was that if Obama was born a bastard on US soil HE WOULD NOT BE A BRITISH CITIZEN.
PERIOD.
Read the law.
So, if Ann was not married to Sr (which I believe to be the case) OR they were married but Sr was also married to Kezia or anyone else-
Obama would be a bastard under British Law and British Citizenship could not be conferred to him.
This is old news. many of us have already been through this argument when I FIRST brought this up years ago.
NO CITIZENSHIP if born a Bastard as per British Law at the time.
.
There may well be more than three classes of citizenship.
Natural Born is not necessarily born in country. Natural Born citizenship arises out of the citizenship of the parents, and nowhere is there any requirement that the Natural Born citizen has to have been born in the country.
It is based on the conditions of birth, not the location of birth. A Natural Born citizen is one that is born a citizen due to his parents allegiance and citizenship, wherever that birth may take place.
Now you are getting into Judicial Review.
Go ahead and believe what you like.
There are Courts that thumb their nose at SCOTUS. That doesn’t mean that SCOTUS isn’t binding.
Now if you want to make a point for the fact that he allowed this dirty little secret to be hidden by the media propaganda aka lies that referred to Obama Sr as an immigrant, that would make for a viable debate.
There is a reason Ann Dunham’s original passport records are being kept from the public. That reason being, that Jr was either born in Canada or Kenya and either way, the daddy wouldn't make a lick of difference because he still would be British at birth. But my bet is on Canada given that fact of her fall college registration and the fact that she has relatives living on the Canadian border where the only hospital was in Canada. That newborn went through INS and those early passport records are too damning to be released.
Get the picture?
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.