Posted on 01/27/2012 10:02:09 AM PST by Danae
The law is whatever the court says it is, on that day. How many courts refused to hear this case with the simple declaration that the complainant had no standing.
I hold out little hope that the courts will begin to look at the destruction of the Constitution as a bad thing, rather than participating in its destruction.
That's precisely what a 14th Amendment citizen is.
A "citizen" because they are born here...but not necessarily a "natural born Citizen" because they might also have allegience owed to another country by way of inheriting their parent(s) foreign citizenship.
Mitt Romney stated in front of a live audience in last nights debate that he was pro immigration because of the fact that his father George Romney was born In MEXICO! So why the world was his Dad running for President against Richard Nixon?
Where oh where will you find one. This thread will soon be invaded by lawyer types to tell you how stupid every one is, that thinks this means anything. They will cite myriads of precedent setting cases just to prove that common sense is really dead after all.
You're an idiot. This article is arguing for no such thing, NOR are those two "classes" of citizenship."
The article is brilliantly clear. You are trying to fog it up with stupid lies.
Go away, shill.
While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered a viable and legal candidate for United States president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives had fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished U.S. citizenship. While the Constitution requires that a president must be a natural-born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican Revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790[citation needed] and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is not clear that Romney was actually eligible for the office of president.
Unfortunately, his plight was never ruled on since he never made it that far.
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.
Leo's a nice guy and I think I mostly agree that Framers intended NBC to mean a citizen child of citizen parents though I am less sure that whatever court has the final say on this has to rule that way.
But his logic here about "statutory construction" is flawed. It is flawed because these two clauses are not part of the same statute. Clause B came after Clause A and most likely was adopted without much thought given to clause A. Prior to the adoption of B, there were people born in the United States who were not granted citizenship (Dred Scott was one.) and the purpose of B was to change that.
ML/NJ
The logic doesn’t follow through my friend. Read this again.
Wow, you really are an attorney.
All that obfuscation and hair-splitting under the claim of clarification, and then the final build up to two undefined positions with no specific contrast of substantive points.
Yep, you're not only an attorney, you're a well paid one.
constitutionallyspeaking Says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Hi Leo,
It continues to frustrate me the misuse/misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. If one applies the same rule you discussed, then the 14th didn’t need to state “natural” born as “subject to the jurisdiction” was to guarantee that none born owing allegiance to a foreign nation was automatically granted citizenship as defined by feudal common law of kings. (jus corona) This is why the 1868 Expatriation Act was passed the SAME week as the 14th was ratified. It is why it was always cited along with the 14th as the US never adopted any form of dual allegiance. As both Waite & Gray stated, “subject to the jurisdiction” means the same at birth as it does for naturalization and an infant at birth has not the capacity to throw off that which is naturally acquired through the parent. Thus putting the word “natural” in front of “born” in the 14th would have been redundant which goes against every rule of law writing on the subject. The core of the 1868 Expatriation Act that deals with dual citizenship is still valid law, it has never been repealed or overturned in a court of law.
I GUARANTEE that until the 14th is put back on it’s foundation of “one citizenship” either at birth or naturalization, this effort to restore A2S1C5 is hopeless.
Every govt cite on citizenship I have researched states that dual citizenship is a “concept”. Well, a concept is not law thus since WKA, we have lived in a nation where citizenship is merely a “concept”. Get rid of the notorious unlawful concept, and then the path to restore A2S1C5 is made straight.
Respectfully, Linda
constitutionallyspeaking Says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Leo,
Permit me to add a bit. I know it won’t be posted as I am not a lawyer, but one doesn’t need a law degree in order to understand the law if one uses their God given brain and common sense.
The 14th Amendment was ratified for one reason and “ONE” reason only. To formally declare that the freed slaves are in fact US citizens.
When someone is sold as a slave, the only allegiance they have is to their master. They have no political rights nor are they considered as persons, they are considered as property. Thus before they were freed, these persons owed political allegiance to no nation and therefore, upon freedom/transformation from property to person, they acquired but one allegiance and that was to the nation they resided in that freed them, the United States.
There was not act of naturalization at that point as they never owed allegiance to any other nation. IOW, no renunciation was required of them. This art of law can be found in the book of Exodus when Israel came out of Egypt. There was a mixed multitude that came out with them, some free person who were naturalized through circumcision, but there was also another group, the slaves of the Israelites. Prior to leaving, YHVH commanded His people to circumcise all the males of the household, both free & slave, thus when they left, the slave was made equal to the master in that at that point he became a bond servant/hired hand, equal to the master under the eyes of the laws of YHVH. He went from slave/property to free man with the freedom to choose the employer he wished to work for.
WKA needs to be thrown out, not reinterpreted.
“I wonder how any honest lawyer could argue against it.”
What’s an honest lawyer?
There are three classes of citizenship.
There are three classes of citizenship. Natural Born Citizen, Citizen (either through Naturalization, or by statute such as the 14th Amendment (Born here, or one citizen parent), and Alien.
The first can run for POTUS, the second and third cannot. The third has no right to any of the benefits of American citizenship including our system of justice, welfare, etc.
“But, but.. What about the Commerce Clause, where the very general is held to require all kinds of specifics?”
That’s because the specifics belong to the general, they do not attempt to override it.
Some things are really so simple they are overlooked because they are so taken for granted. We cannot afford to take ANYTHING for granted these days.
:)
Can you explain to me why my daughter cannot be President?
She was born in Canada, right across the border from our home. She was a “resident” of Canada fore the first 48 hours of her life. She has lived with us, who are both natural born USA citizens, for the rest of her childhood, and is now 39 years old.
But, she cannot be President, because she was born in Canada. Why does the law prevent her, but not Barry O, who doesn’t have two natural born USA citizens, and has not produced an undoctored birth certificate showing the place of his birth. (Which I suspect was right across the border, in Canada)
Inquiring minds want to know why the difference?
Well, I’m not an attorney and I saw the fault in his argument right away
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2838849/posts?page=30#30
"Without much thought"? LOL, go for the brass ring, eh? I'm afraid its your logic that is flawed. It is irrational and specious to argue that the creation of a Constitutional Amendment was done without regard to the sole alternative to the definition of citizenship it would create. In fact, even a little research would show that the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to create an alternate definition of citizenship in order to restrict rights into privileges - and in doing so, enable the federal takeover of the country we see today. And as for differing statutes, that is irrelevent - what matters is the common subject matter.
There is not law that upholds that statement. A concept, yes,m but not a law.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2838849/posts?page=30#30
There is no law that upholds that statement. A concept, yes,m but not a law.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2838849/posts?page=30#30
His Honor Malihi has already quoted the rules which Leo explains. As for Obama’s pappy, we can only go by what Obama has PUBLISHED. Until such time as the cretin can be forced to come clean. Of course he will not do that. So, we are back to square one. What ever else may be it is OBAMA’s OBLIGATION to prove his eligibility. It isn’t OUR responsibility, it is HIS.
So we will continue to DEMAND he OBEY us, his boss.
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.