Posted on 10/01/2012 3:58:17 PM PDT by Red Steel
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment
You read my comment up above citing minor which says "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." and you still want to post that the 14th defines "natural citizen"?
That sir, is cognitive dissonance.
Where, in the 14th, does it say anything about "natural born Citizen?"
Furthermore, if there is hidden text there that your privy too, or perhaps Congressional debate on the 14th that is in contradition to that of John Bingham's (multiple) remarks, from what did the 14th "modify" it to mean Jus Solis? In other words, what was the "original" meaning prior to the 14th in your opinion?
If Barry gets reelected and gets to replace one of the five conservative justices before being declared ineligible (for whatever reason he is hiding) the USA may never recover!
Do men have a natural right to keep and bear arms under natural law or is that man made law under the 2nd amendment?
Judging by the quick response by resident Obots including Mr. Rogers, there is concern. The judge is obviously correct. But we have a compromised Supreme Court, with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Roberts joining the other three progressives. The Constitution has been weakened by many who believe, like Obama, that the Constitution constrains them from doing what they think our nation needs. The British-born Obama, naturalized by his own admission, could not have accomplished all he has done to redistribute our wealth, and move us toward Sharia law had the Constitution been respected. Roberts’ administration of the oath, knowing, as did all of Washington, of Obama’s alien father, was a strong clue, later proved correct by his Obamacare decision.
As FR comments show, most know that the 14th Amendment explicitly avoids any mention of natural born citizen. Its author explained why in his addresses to the House before passage. I won't quote John Bingham, having done so many times, but mention that “parents with allegiance to no prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty” in our naturlization oath comes from Bingham’s speech to the House, "...of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." Our Immigration and Naturalization Service is built upon Bingham’s Naturalization Amendment, which should be no surprise. The Congress defined the requirements for parents whose child would be eligible to be our president. Before that states retained their pre-constitution naturalization laws, all of which contained oaths of sole allegiance, but some of which discriminated in ways inappropriate to a free republic.
The Judge is only confirming what was obvious until 2008, after the second of two Senate Judiciary hearings initiated by Obama campaign committee members, when the WaPo, NYT, LA Times, etc, stopped carrying reviews of legal opinions about McCain's ineligibility. Obama himself with McCaskill, filed SB 2678 in Feb., and McCaskill with Leahy filed SR 511 in Apr. 2008. Both actions, a bill, the “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act” which failed to pass out of committee, and a resolution, SR 511, emphasized that “citizen parents” were the prime critereon for every US Senator's agreement that McCain should be considered and NBC. They felt that the congressional oversight resulting in the Canal Zone remaining unincorporated should be ignored, because that is not what the framers intended with Article II Section 1. The key issue to all our senators in February and April of 2008 was that a president must have been born to citizen parents.
Twice between 2002 and 2006 John Conyers tried to pass amendments to Article II Section 1. His amendments, which would have made Obama eligible, failed of course. All twenty six attempts to amend Article II Section 1 have failed, including Orrin Hatch’s, to make Schwarzenegger eligible. There were three other attempts between 2002 and 2007, one by Menendez and a couple of others, Our political parties, both of them promoting ineligible candidates, decided that Article II Section 1 was a political risk. Too few would understand it, and for Republicans, raising Obma’s ineligibility would certainly incur racism charges, probably accompanied by riots, which were in fact promised by James Carvill, managed by by Acorn and the SEIU. Hillary was just sitting there, knowing Obama was ineligible, ready to take over the nomination.
Obots will continue to generate fog with Wong Kim Ark, in which Minor v. Happersett's definition of who are natural born citizens is Justice Gray's first citation. Mr. Rogers will dig up more obscure citations that lead to nothing, but look scholarly. Don't waste your time. He and Dr. Conspiracy have run out of anything written in a prevailing Supreme Court decsion, turning to quaint decisions from state courts and overturned federal judges, or the idiotic Indiana decsion, which cites Leo Donofrio's discovery and claims Chester Arthur's contempories knew what Donofrio discovered.
Lawyers objecting to Wong Kim Ark would long ago have found that Gray was inconsistent with his own citation, and forced the retraction of the Wong Kim decision if Gray had even implied inconsistency. He obviously didn't, and rendered Wong Kim a citizen. Besides that, a decsion or interpretation by the Supreme Court cannot be altered by implication. Changes must be explicit. Nothing changed the Minor decision - ever.
But with the current court, reinterpretation might be possible. Roberts is a progressive. No law (thank you Leo Donofrio) imposes respect for precedent. Precedent is a convenience, a tool, the way a mathematician can use an established theorem without proof, or a programmer uses system services. A court that strongly supports the progressive notion of a "living Constitution" might reinterpret Article II Section 1. If they did so at least we would know that the son of Islamic radicals, illegally in Arizona, raised in and provided scholarships by our taxes, who prays in Wahabi Mosques supported by our taxes through exemptions, and defended by our public interest law firms, paid by our taxes, is now eligible to be president. We seem now to have no legal right to see his/her passport, student records, federal aid, or birth documents. We know his parent's allegiance, but have removed the provision, Article II Section 1, that pertains to the allegiance of parents. Parents no longer matter, as if we even know who Barry's parents were. Any oaths he commits to are protected by his religous adherance which ordains Taquia, lying to Infidels. We are almost all infidels, and we approved of the changes to our laws which made lying to us legal, as well as enabling death panels and promoting the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of the Middle East.
As ridiculous as that scenario sounds, remember that if we believe Percy Sutton, a decorated Army Air Force Pilot, Charles Rangel's and Malcolm X's and Louis Farrakhan's and the Muslim Brotherhood's attorney, respected borrough president of Manhatten and close friend of Harvard University, our current president had Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal as his patron. Since the friend who approached Sutton to help Obama with his admission to Harvard law has been a Wahabi recruiter and attorney to bin-Talal since the mid-70s, and converted to Islam, changing his name from Don Warden, Black Panther founder, to Khalid al-Mansour, in 1968, it can be assumed that his ward, Obama, sympathizes, if he is not himself Muslim - which seems unlikely. Since Obama has hidden most every other record from his past, and since Sutton was always an upstanding officer of the Court, his word is probably more credible than Barack's or David Axelro's, or Vernon Jarrett's daughter-in-law's, all of whom worked for openly Marxist and Communist organiations where the end justifies the means. How is that different from Taquia? Honoring, respecting and protecting the Constitution, Article II Section 1, would have protected us from this mess.
The Supreme Court is only valuable if it's decisions are respected, and that respect is diminishing. It won't resolve cases John Marshall said "it must address", cases where only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, in this case, Constitutional Interpretation. Perhaps your judge will force the final court of appeals to decide the issue, or, by inference, not act, agreeing with the judge who said what has been repeated by many justices, that there are two classes of citizen recognized by the Constitution, natural born, and naturalized citizens, and they are clearly distinct. Only a natural born citizen may be president. Justice Gray affirmed, in Wong Kim Ark, that they share the same rights. Being president is not a right, but being natural born is a Constitutional requirement.
Domo for the Ping. It was worth reading through the Obot detritus just to get to Spaulding’s as-always scintillating commentary. :)
Very well stated. My point was not to disagree with the Judge’s ruling which I believe was correct, but to opine that if the issue ever rises to the Supreme Court, we will be disappointed by the result. If given the chance, most members of the Judiciary will render the clause moot, they think that it is a quaint artifact that no longer applies. Of course, it would not be the first time that the Court has ignored the Constitution.
Only one circumstance might alter this outcome: a true conservative candidate cruising for victory who is discovered to have an eligibility issue. In that case, opinions will shift overnight.
The Constitution did NOT spell out the meaning of NBC because the meaning was already understood. It was a well known legal term, long used. And that long accepted meaning included those born of alien parents.
That was the Supreme Court’s point - the wording used in the 14th was a restatement, 100 years later, of what everyone understood the term to mean when the Constitution was written in 1787.
I want to see him escorted out the back door of MY WH in handcuffs by Lakin and sent straight to Lakin’s old prison cell to spent the rest of his sorry life.
Not according to the Senate. Not according to Homeland Security Chertoff. Not according to Hillary. And not according to Obama who signed his name not once but twice to the definition of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS in Senate Resolution 511.
None that you mention belong to the Judiciary which is the only branch of government that counts in this matter.
In Thomas’ own words, SCOTUS is “evading” the subject.
Thanks!
Follow along. IF, I say "if" ... Obama were (note subjunctive)were a "Natural Born Citizen" all the wild orangutans in Indonesia could not remove that status from him, particularly as a minor. However, the fact that the claimed sperm donor in Case Obama was a British subject puts paid to any possibility of "Natural Born Citizenship," in MNSVHO.
Point is, he is, at best, if he can prove birth in the US, a "Native Born" citizen. BTW, nor can THAT be removed from a minor, if said minor wishes to reclaim citizenship upon reaching his majority. In point of fact, Mr. Obama had the choice of becoming an American, a British Subject, or a citizen of a Free Kenya upon reaching his majority. (If he indeed did so, ... which I take to be the point of your discourse.... I guess we just got lucky.)
"Native," is not "Natural," as Webster and no end of other authors will tell you. And that is the crux of the matter.
One more point before I let you go back to your lutefisk, since neither of us is cashing a SCOTUS paycheck, my opinions are not binding upon thee or anyone else, and in counterpoint your WAGs are worth a similar hill of beans.
Since those who have the statutory constitutional authority on the state level to do anything about this seem unimpressed by my scholarly, dispassionate, well-reasoned approach, or your illogical rantings, just pass me the lutefisk and let's concentrate on removing the Mombasa Marxist MF by electoral means, shall we?
It's all we have. BTW, always enjoyed your "Catholic Charities" SS# explanation. Put the documentation under the lutefisk.
"Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid."
Just to be clear, There are two issues here.
I don't think anyone in the Constitutional Bar has ever thought seriously that the 14th Amendment repealed the Natural Born Citizen requirement for eligibility to hold the office of President under Article II, Section 1.
Neither has anyone ever seriously argued that a person who was not a citizen at birth but who first became a citizen as a result of a naturalization proceeding would be a Natural Born Citizen for this purpose.
The distinction drawn on efficacy of the 14th Amendment is with respect to persons who were citizens at birth as a result of their birth in the geographical territory of the several states.
There is no authority for the proposition that such a person (an individual born in the US) would ever have been held not eligible because of other factors. The overwhelming view has always been that such a person would be held Natural Born whoever his parents were or wherever they were born or citizens at the time of birth. In fact, the best legislative history demonstrates that the founders were concerned only about place of birth and sovereignty of the person that resulted.
However the point of the 14th Amendment was to insure that whatever the history of the person or his parents, if he was born in the US, he acquired the full benefit of all rights appurtenant to citizenship which would include the eligibility and right to hold the office of President.
Should the 14th operate in that fashion? Maybe not. But there isn't much doubt that is how the Supreme Court would come down if the issue were presented today.
If the 14th amendment did ANYTHING to create eligibility for someone simply on the basis of place of birth, then the equal protection clause would create that same right for persons who are naturalized. That’s the whole point of the equal protection clause ... EQUAL protection. The court can’t arbitrarily decide one class of citizens has special rights unless that class of citizen has citizenship that is defined outside of the 14th amendment. And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court did in Minor v. Happersett, citing a class of citizenship defined outside of the 14th amendment ... a class of citizenship due to birth to citizen parents and ... and a class of citizenship characterized exclusively as “natives, or natural born citizens” .... and this is what the court later affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Ex Parte Lockwood and Luria v. United States. Wong Kim Ark said it eloquently — when construing the 14th amendment, the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, it’s not enough to be born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction thereof to be a natural-born citizen. There’s no direct evidence to show that today’s Supreme Court would overturn the unanimous precedent of those decisions ... although they might try their hardest to avoid hearing any case that would put them in such a position.
Nothing in the 14th Amendment about Naturalized Citizens; I don't see any argument that Equal Protection has anything to do with the issue.
14th Amendment is a pure place of birth proposition--it says if you are born here, you get all of the rights of a citizen; no distinction about the class of rights.
My own view is that the 14th Amendment did nothing to modify the Natural Born Citizenship definition with respect to such persons (born in the US); there certainly isn't any doubt that the Supreme Court would have held such persons eligible under Article II without regard to the citizenship or place of birth of their parents without the Amendment.
However in 1963, many Conservative lawyers (there were still some around in that era) argued that whatever doubt there might have been about Goldwater's eligibility (because he was born in Arizona prior to statehood) had been resolved by the 14th Amendment because place of birth was always about sovereign jurisdiction and the territory had always been under US jurisdiction.
Craig v. U.S., Ruling 10 Circuit Court of Appeals, no person has the right to be classified as a Natural born citizen. SCOTUS has opined on situations where a person is a Natural born citzen, but the term has never been completely defined and the Constitution does not grant anyone Natural born citizenship status as a right.
Natural born citizenship status is lost when a Certificate of Nationality is issued, unless U.S. Citizenship is recaptured through an adjudication of a complaint against the Certificate of Loss of Nationality. A minor that has been issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality can recapture their U.S. Citizenship and their Natural born citizenship status through a request with the State Department until 6 months after their 18th birthday.
The U.S. SoS does not need an Oath of Renunciation or the permission of the former U.S. Citizen who has moved out of the country to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Obama was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality when his mother notified the State Department he had naturalized in Indonesia and would have to be removed from her renewal passport.
For whatever reason, Obama chose not to recapture his U.S. Citizenship prior to 6 months after his 18th birthday. Obama went through the naturalization process and was issued his Certificate of Naturalization in 1983. Consequently, Obama had Natural born citizenship status and then he lost it forever when he was issued a Certificate on Naturalization.
As to your assertion I do not cash a check from SCOTUS ... prove it. Show me a link or STFU.
Sven,it is good to see you post more than those few lines about Obama being naturalized.
Now you have said repeatedly in other posts that Obama was naturalized in 1983.
How do you know this for sure? Is there a document in existence that says this?
Because now it the time to help exposé this imposter.
For whatever reason, Obama chose not to recapture his U.S. Citizenship prior to 6 months after his 18th birthday. Obama went through the naturalization process and was issued his Certificate of Naturalization in 1983.** Consequently, ***Obama had Natural born citizenship status and then he lost it forever when he was issued a Certificate on Naturalization.
Well, I have already STFU.
*However, where is this Certificate?"
**And where is this Certificate. If indeed you are cashing a SCOTUS paycheck and have seen these documents, I of course bow to your direct experience of them.
Now, as to the original premise: was, in your opinion, Obama a "Natural Born Citizen" at any time in the chronology you establish?
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.