Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship

WND ^ | 9/01/2012 | Larry Klayman

[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.”

[DiogenesLamp]

Absolutely. If the Court ever takes up the question, they'll go with the commonly understood meaning of "natural born":

You mean the commonly misunderstood meaning of "natural born". (or if you don't, you should.)

Whoever is entitled to US citizenship by birth is natural born and eligible to be president.

Not Aldo Mario Bellei. So you are wrong right there. The exception disproves the rule.

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.

McCain yes, Rubio Maybe, Jindal I don't know because I never bothered to look at his details.

Obama's problem is not that he's not natural born. He is.

And how would you know? I don't trust any document coming out of Hawaii, the place has been used to get citizenship for all sorts of Pacific Rim people since it became an American Territory. They have a birth certificate selling market going on over there, and their laws are lax as h3ll regarding proof of birth. Pembrook Johnson Claims to have been borne in Brisbane Australia, yet he has a Hawaiian birth certificate.

So far, we've seen no indisputable proof that Obama was actually born IN Hawaii. All the evidence I've seen (that isn't fake, that is) points to him having been born in Western Canada, or possibly Northwest Washington state.

Rather, it's that he's not an American in his own mind. There's a new movie out about that: 2016.

I am not convinced that he's an American at all. If he was born in Canada, he doesn't even meet citizenship standards by any stretch of American Law.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry but if I’m supposed to choose between Antonin Scalia and Larry Klayman over who has a better understanding and knowledge of the Constitution then I’m going with Justice Scalia every time.

He said he didn't know. I believe him. You should too.

[DiogenesLamp]

I realize you are incapable of understanding WKA. That doesn’t mean the courts are similarly handicapped. It is excruciatingly clear to any rational mind.

I understand that they didn't put the word "Natural Born" in their decision anywhere. Why do you insist on putting it in their for them?

[DiogenesLamp]

The gerundologists who visit this page are laughing at you...

English is a bastard language anyway. People should laugh at those who take it too seriously.

[DiogenesLamp]

The gerundologists who visit this page are laughing at you...

While I am on this subject, I have to share with you one of my Favorite Winston Churchillisms. Often annoyed by picky grammar Nazis he supposedly wrote,

"This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."

[x]

I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?”

Because there are also naturalized citizens. Everybody knows that -- or should.

If Scalia were this easily "flummoxed" I'd be worried, but I don't think he was.

Larry Klayman has to clear up the backlog of Clinton scandals before he tries to float any new theories.

What happened with all those Clinton theories? Which are true? Which are not? Which are still worth pursuing? Which aren't?

[X-spurt]

OK..... don’t bother ACTUALLY reading anything the Founding Fathers had to say or understanding where they were coming from. Half assumptions and make it up as ya go is SOP with some FRreepers these days.

English Common Law has very little to do with King George’s suppression of America, but it was the historical “common” law the Founders knew and used as a base when they re-invented and converted to what we have.

[Delhi Rebels]

I believe him. You should too.

Why?

[Delhi Rebels]

Scalia would be a fool to answer the question. He’d just get himself disqualified if the issue ever came up.

How? Who would disqualify him?

[RummyChick]

Did ANY of you read the discussion in the oral arguments of Nguyen or bother to read Rogers V Bellei - 1971 case.

Note again...what Scalia said in Nguyen about natural born citizen.

Born on US soil.

Not born to two parents on US soil

And yes, Rogers V Bellei suggests that natural born can be naturalized.

[potlatch]

[potlatch]

[potlatch]

One press, two eggs, hmmmm.........

[Brilliant]

He would disqualify himself.

[Delhi Rebels]

He would disqualify himself.

You said he would get disqualified, which indicates someone else would say that Justice Scalia couldn't hear the case. That isn't true. And for Justice Scalia to recuse himself then he'd have to honestly believe he was incapable of issuing a fair and impartial ruling. Do you think he believes that?

[Mr Rogers]

“I understand that they didn’t put the word “Natural Born” in their decision anywhere.”

They did, but you aren’t smart enough to read. I have no hope of helping you. You are nuts. I’m hoping to influence others who CAN read and understand. And the COURTS know how to read, which is why I’ve been right in my predictions on every birther case for years.

That is why I posted the link - so anyone with eyes that can see can do so.

[Ted Grant]

He couldn’t give a legal opinion without researching it first.

[circumbendibus]

Hi Greg.

It is interesting that the leftists at Google list wikipedia as the first of 4,630,000 entries for the authority of "natural born citizen."

Here is the first part:

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence. The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

[edge919]

Anyone who can read and who is honest would see that Justice Gray distinguished NBC from 14th amendment citizenship by birth when he cited Minor v. Happersett, emphasizing that this decision said that when it construed the 14th amendment it did NOT say who were natural-born citizens. Second, they gave the holding of Minor which said Virginia Minor was found to be a citizen by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents. If they believed the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, which only relied on birth in the territory, then there would have been no need to mention that Minor was born to citizen parents. Further, the other Supreme Court precedent is from Luria v. United States where it cited Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark in specifically defining presidential eligibility. That eligibility is based on defining NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." If the 14th amendment defined NBC, then because of the equal protection clause, naturalized citizens would also have to be eligible for office. This is why Luria did NOT cite Wong Kim Ark. It cited Minor because this would exempt naturalized citizens from being eligible. That's 27 Supreme Court justices who agreed that NBC is ALL children born in the country to citizen parents. There is no higher legal precedent. NONE.

Yes, Wong Kim Ark used jus soli to define 14th amendment birth citizenship, but it used permanent residence and domicil of the parents to satisfy the subject clause. Obama fails to meet this criteria because his mama's permanent domicil became Kenya the moment she married Barack Sr., who not a resident alien.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Klayman is fulla crap. I doubt whatever encounter he had with Scalia remotely resembles what he wrote. He's a PayPal lawyer...send him donations and he'll tell you all the great things he's doin’ ...although nothing of consequence ever seems to happen.