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 ...
“The High Court did no such thing.”
Whether you acknowledge it or not the USSC most certaintly did.
Klayman tried to pull a fast one.
“According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means...”
Wait a second. He cited the actual language of the constitution, but then he *interpreted* what *he* thinks it means, pretending that the courts have only interpreted it that way.
Anything but. What “natural born citizen” actually means has been interpreted in many ways over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen#Interpretations_of_the_clause
Today, as of 2011, the best the Congressional Research Service can come up with on the subject is that, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates...”
Yes, this is waffling. However, the Supreme Court itself has reinterpreted what “natural born citizen” means several times.
So hitting Scalia with an ambush question tells us only that Scalia honestly does not know the answer, nor could he, until the Supreme Court decides it, and they haven’t done so.
As such, since congress never wrote “enabling acts”, the SCOTUS would have to debate among themselves and rule before anything could be said definitively about what the clause *means*.
Either “The Illegitimate President” or “The Father of Our Glorious Revolution.” I’m hoping for the former but fearful of the latter....
Horse hockey. Scalia darn well knows the definition is 1) born in the USA and 2) to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS. Thomas has already admitted SCOTUS is “evading” not ignoring, not waiting for it to come to their docket, but EVADING as in they don’t want to touch it. The definition was also agreed upon by Obama and Hillary and Chertoff in the committee for SR511. Obama and Hillary signed their signatures to that committee findings on the definition. They then signed a second time when it went to the Senate floor when it was agreed upon by the Senate. IOW, Congress agrees to the 1)born in the USA and 1) to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.
Sorry, your son does not meet the jus sangius requirement or unless you mean your hubby was naturalized on the day your son was born.
My prediction is that SCOTUS wants to let the election take its course and then address this afterwards.
“There is no reference to a candidate’s parents in the constitution.”
There is. It says “Natural Born Citizen”. The Framers knew that this was what it meant. By using THIS “specific” term, they made that “statement” (not just a reference). In fact, they CHANGED the wording for that specific reason.
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/synopsis.htm
http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Probably not:
“In short, We the People no longer have a republic, because our leaders represent only themselves, not us – and that goes for both Democrats and Republicans no matter what kind of sideshow they offer up at their 2012 political conventions.”
In my view we will not have a resolution or a future as a Republic until we restore the republic by over turning certain Amendments to the Constitution and replacing them with reinforcements to the basic principles of the Constitution... this will probably not happen.
Well, you’ve got some blogs in support of that argument. Your problem is that it looks like the judiciary takes a different view.
It's over. This stuff is going nowhere.
Absolutely. If the Court ever takes up the question, they'll go with the commonly understood meaning of "natural born": Whoever is entitled to US citizenship by birth is natural born and eligible to be president. Others who become citizens via naturalization are not natural born and not eligible to be president. Obama, McCain, Rubio, Jindal, etc., are natural born. Schwarzenegger and Kissinger are not.
Obama's problem is not that he's not natural born. He is. Rather, it's that he's not an American in his own mind. There's a new movie out about that: 2016.
Your opinion is that having one citizen parent is sufficient to qualify a person to be President.
Do we both agree that having TWO non-citizen parents is not sufficient? What is it about having two non-citizen parents that would have caused our Founders to eliminate such a person from the Presidency, given that such a person would be eligible for other offices such as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or Senator?
What is the nature of our Founder's concern if somehow the concern disappears even if the person in question has ONE non-citizen parent? Is it not at least conceivable that our Founders wished to eliminate the possibility that a person's allegiance would be seriously compromised by that one parent?
In your case, your son's father was an immigrant. He was presumably residing in this country at the time of your son's birth, and based on his later becoming a citizen, one might infer that he had that intention at the time of your son's birth.
Would the circumstance be any different if your son's father and you had never married? Would the circumstances be different if your son's father had never immigrated to the U.S.? Would they be different if your son had been born in a foreign country? Would they be different if your son had never stepped foot in the U.S. but had been raised by his father?
Just hypothetically, you could have conceived a son by the future heir to the British throne and your son could be in the line of succession. Would you claim that our Founders would have considered him acceptable as a President?
Rubio’s parents were in the US with permisson of the US govt, therefore this clause would make Rubio, and Jindal likewise given the same with his parents, naturally born.
Rubio’s parents “did not have permission” from the US Govt....they came in 1957 before Castro and our special policy against Cuba. Rubio’s parents actually fled capitalist Batista regime
Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, so that would not make Rubio a NBC.
Beleieve me, the Dems will raise all kinds of Eligibility Hell if Rubio is ever a VP or Pres nominee. Unfortunately, there are too many PhonyCons who refuse to challenge Obama’s Eligibility
Thanks for your effort. It turned out about the way I expected.
No it hasn't. You can't change the nature of someone's birth by passing an amendment.
I have always assumed they would get it wrong. This just reinforces my belief that they would get it wrong. Unless someone has specifically researched this particular sub-topic of constitutional law, they DO NOT KNOW the truth. They are simply relying on left over conventional wisdom and misapplied precedent.
What's your source?
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens......”
That's an exact quote according to caselaw.com http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
BTW, my argument was that the issue regarding NBC was that of non-citizen parents. You would have seen that had you carefully read my post.
A bit trigger happy there.
Wong Kim Ark specifically excludes the words "Natural born" in their decision. Wong was ruled a "citizen", not a "natural" citizen.
I will also point out that the Minor court specifically said that the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizen."
The Poserity of We the People.In longer form, it is the Posterity of We the People for whom the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ
Amen!
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.