Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH
[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.
Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
It has been resolved by the 14th amendment - for good or bad.
This just goes to show that no one ..and I mean NO ONE..knows how a ruling would come down from SCOTUS on this issue...despite FREEPERS who claim to know exactly what would happen.
Scalia does talk about it in the oral arguments of Nguyen.
It would seem that many of our FReepers are more qualified to sit on the bench than Scalia.
In the meantime, and for another 140+- days, we have to live with "an empty chair".
Unfortunately, it also goes to show how we are viewed as the crazy uncle in the basement. Despite the plethora of articles and discussion about this topic over the past four years here and in the conservative blogosphere, the concept has not even appeared on the radar of the most conservative of Supreme Court justices that it is a legitimate issue.
Scalia didnt look and sound flumuxed because he didnt know the answer...
he did not want to put himself in the position of having to recuse himself from an Obama Natural Born Citizen case, by taking a side on it, before a decision is to be made.
what a jerk the author is.
The author supposedly asked, “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?”
Am I supposed to believe that Scalia doesn't know there is a difference between a citizen born and one naturalized? My daughter-in-law was naturalized a week ago. She is not eligible for President because she wasn't born in the USA. I find it incredibly hard to believe someone who claims Scalia doesn't know the difference between being born in the USA and being naturalized...
His answer is consistent with his comments in a SCOTUS case during oral arguments.
From another thread....
Lets see empty chairs in every front garden nation wide.
The media is totally disinterested in Obama's past records.
The media is totally fascinated by Romney's past records.
The media is totally fascinated by Todd Akin.
The media is totally disinterested in Paul Ryan's black college girlfriend.
The media is totally disinterested in Obama robo-signing letters to dead and wounded SEALs.
The media was totally fascinated by Bush robo-signing letters to dead and wounded Iraq & Afghanistan veterans.
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
I thought Roberts was the SC poker player.
Who is this guy? He's gone from assertion to conclusion with no argument or evidence. The Constitution is not always as clear as the nose on your face. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. It takes diligent research sometimes to uncover the intended meaning and original understanding of the text, sometimes going back to English common law which was much of our framers point of reference.
The point is, the Constitution doesn't mean what somebody WANTS it to mean. It's meaning is found in the understanding of the text which, again, may be clear, but should be verified by looking at the historical context of the intent and understanding of the framers.
come on....THINK. he is the BEST we have. do you really believe he would answer that question and have to recuse himself when a decision on Obama needs to be made....
Not just that, but Scalia is smart enough not to allow Klayman insert him into the middle of the Election.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a case about a woman who wanted to vote. It had nothing to do with qualifications for POTUS. It does, however, address the issue of what a natural-born citizen is, but leaves open the question of children born in a U.S. jurisdiction to non-citizen parents. In my quick search, I don't see any subsequent cases that shed any more light on the subject. Relevant part of the opinion below:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Minor, 88 U.S. 162.
Nevertheless, there may be an issue because Rubio's parents were not citizens at the time Rubio was born. WorldNetDaily's research shows a native-born citizen born to non-citizen parents may not be what is meant in the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen." http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/rubio-autobiography-proves-hes-not-eligible-for-vp/
There are also those who assert that a native-born citizen IS a natural-born citizen. It almost certainly would have to be decided at the SCOTUS level, if Rubio were to run for POTUS. (What the Immigration Service says is not a deciding factor.)
It seems to me to be a minor point that his parents became citizens two or three years after Rubio's birth in the United States. I guess more research will need to be done to find what was the the intent of the framers was in their use of the term "natural-born citizen". I believe in strict construction of the Constitution by ruling as close as possible to the original intent of the framers, not what a judge or Justice WANTS their intent to have been. My guess is SCOTUS would most likely allow Rubio to be a natural-born citizen for purpose of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution. This may in fact be what the framers intended, but SCOTUS is generally not strict in constructing textual Constitutional meaning, which is why I think they would rule in favor of Rubio, whether or not this was the original intent and understanding of the text of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution.
During the oral aruments of Nguyen, the attorney says that the naturalized term in the Constitution can include natural born citizens as suggested by Rogers V Bellei.
What is clear from the oral argument is that the definition of Natural Born citizen is up in the air.
It is interesting to note that when a case came up again discussing Nguyen..no mention was made of natural born citizen- perhaps because it was now the topic across the country.
What I would have loved to have seen would have been a projected image of an empty suit slowly coming into focus and then appearing behind Eastwood as he spoke, and Eastwood would turn slightly and address the empty suit rather than the chair.
I really don't want my car keyed to death....but my deductible is only $200.
That was my first thought as well.
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.