Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
What the courts would decide, I don't know. I do know what they "would" decide regarding children of legal immigrants, because that is settled law. Such children are natural born citizens.
Then you haven't done enough reading yet.
Depending on the amount of reading you've done, you might well disagree. If you do a lot more reading, including original sources, and what's been written on both sides, then you will see that every argument that you have believed is built on sand.
Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.
Except they never said any such thing. On the contrary, Madison said that place of birth was what counted in the United States, and William Rawle, who met regularly with both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, two of our very top founders, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, was CRYSTAL CLEAR that "natural born citizen" INCLUDED the children born on US soil of ALIEN parents.
Crystal clear.
Also, as noted a few posts back, the "undivided loyalty" meme collapses completely. It's just a claim that birthers made, that the Founders had this goal of "undivided loyalty." it does NOT match history. It does NOT match what they said. It does NOT match what they did.
Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.
You're welcome to beleive whatever you like. You're welcome to believe that the Founding Fathers made George Washington King George I, or that John Adams invented the steamboat. All major authorities disagree with you.
Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.
That's precisely what they specified. Age 35, natural born citizen, 14 years a resident of the United States.
Now why do you think they said fourteen years? Why not FIFTEEN? Or TWENTY?
Why not some round number? Mmmmn?
I'll bet Mr Rogers can give a good guess... as to why, exactly, precisely...
FOURTEEN.
Attachment, yes. But how much attachment?
See my last comment to Windflier & Rogers. And tell me, if you can, how just fourteen years' residency in the country, can provide the kind of attachment you're talking about.
Also tell me, if you can... why FOURTEEN years?
Yes, I agree.
Vattel didn’t use “sujects naturels” in the section on indigenes and natives. And, that seems to be the one section EVERYONE thinks they’re an expert on.
However, I’ve studied the whole damn book! Read it in the original old-style French, backwards and forwards. It’s certainly an interesting book and well worth reading.
And, I’m fairly confident that I’m more of an expert on that little book than most birthers or after-births.
So, it just gets my dander up whenever someone who obviously hasn’t read the entire book regurgitates the deceptive statement that Vattel never used the the phrase “Natural Born Subjects.”
Anyway, thanks for awarding me that point! LOL!
Cheers!
DL makes an argument on another thread that Rawle’s view was not the authoritative view, and it is a point worth considering. Rawle’s personal friendship with Washington, Franklin etc is not to be lightly dismissed, but neither is it decisive. At the founding, there was a transition underway that left a crazy quilt of conflicting definitions for citizenship, as DL’s post here describes:
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/2821875/posts?page=119#119
Nor is Jefferson’s presidency determinative, as the NBC clause specifically grandfathered in the founding generation as a second category of eligible persons. This was a matter of necessity, as it might be difficult to fill the office of president if the stricter rule were applied during that transitional period at the beginning. Indeed, there would have been no need for the grandfathering loophole if the NBC criteria could be easily met by the political luminaries in that first American generation.
Bottom line, this is in fact a very complicated question, and it is best answered by those whom we have granted the authority to say what the law is, our judiciary, and they have not yet spoken with finality on the exact facts of this case.
Well, my understanding of the 14 year requirement comes from a faulty memory of my Constitutional Studies courses almost 30 years ago. From what I remember the professor saying, it seemed to have had something to do with wanting the first President to have been physically in the United States before the War of Independence started.
So, let me see... 1787 - 14yrs = 1773...
But still, it doesn’t make sense as to why it wasn’t grandfathered out and a much stricter residency requirement eventually kick in.
Anyway, the professor might of been blowing smoke, or I might be mis-remembering it, but that’s my memory of it and I’m sticking to it! LOL
Cheers!
Thanks! I’ll check it out.
Cheers!
Well, most of us are living in the real world and in the real world, the voters would not find that Vladimir Putin is qualified to be president. But, I will entertain your imaginary hypothetical long enough to say that if the American people did find him qualified and did vote for him and their electors did choose him, then he would become president. The Congress could then remove him.
In the same spirit, maybe you should consider a hypothetical. Suppose that space aliens were to inhabit the bodies of each member of the Supreme Court and that they were bound and determined to destroy our constitutional framework. Under those circumstances, would you still think that the Supreme Court should have a major role in reviewing the qualifications of all presidential candidates?
Maybe we're wasting our time imagining hypotheticals that involve Putin and space aliens.
I know you sincerely believe that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president, although it's never been real clear to me why you are so certain of that belief. If you were afforded a courtroom to prove your case, I don't believe you would show up with so much as one witness who could competently testify that Obama was born anywhere but in the United States and I don't believe you would show up with so much as one witness who could testify as a witness to his conception. I don't think you really know where any of our presidents were born or who their fathers were other than what you've read in books written by people you don't even know.
The harsh reality is that the voters and their electors heard the arguments that Obama was not born in the U.S. and heard the arguments concerning his paternity and its relevance and after hearing all that, the voters and electors rejected your theories and facts. You are entitled to believe that they were wrong to reject your claims, , but the important fact is that they did not think they were wrong and they were entrusted by the Constitution to make the call.
If it is of any consolation to you, try to remind yourself that, aside from what you've read or heard, you haven't got the slightest idea whether any our prior presidents were "natural born citizen" no matter how you define that term. Uncertainty may be uncomfortable at times, but it's an unavoidable aspect of our human experience. Uncertainty is unavoidable, but you choose the level of misery that you experience because of it.
I think that you are forgetting that it is the vote of the Electors that decides who is President. In 2000 no candidate received a simple majority of the popular vote. Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but Bush won in the electoral college with a majority of the Electors.
There have been a few other elections where no candidate got a simple majority. You need a majority of the Electors, then you need to have your Electoral votes certified in a Joint Session of Congress where one Representative and one Senator can raise an objection to Vladimir Putin’s Electoral votes. I’m betting that Rand Paul and Michelle Bachman, at the very least would object to Vladimir Putin claiming to be born in America.
Barack Obama, on the other hand has two verifications of his birth in Hawaii from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Hawaii Director of Health, one confirmation from Loretta Fuddy the current Director of Health, three Letters of Verification from Dr. Onaka, Hawaii state Registrar, confirmations from former Governor Linda Lingle and current Governor Neil Abercrombie, a House of Representatives Resolution stating that he was born in Hawaii which passed the House 378-0 (H. Res. 593, 111th Congress, 2009) and ten state and federal court decisions explicitly or implicitly declaring him to be a natural born citizen. Here’s an excerpt from one of the ten:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
All told, there have been 201 original jurisdiction challenges to Obama’s eligibility, 70 state and federal appellate level rulings and 24 appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, no ruling has found Obama to be ineligible or to not qualify as a natural born citizen.
I sincerely doubt that Vladimir Putin could amass that much support for his status as a natural born citizen.
I understand, and I have read DL's earlier post. His points are not new.
By the way, the fact that DL attempts to argue against Rawle (and a bunch of other evidence) is a clear sign of his commitment to the birther fantasy.
Here we have a man who was VERY close to both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. He met with them in Franklin's home, regularly, just prior to the Constitutional Convention.
He says, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that the US-born children of aliens are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
And here you have DL trying to argue against him.
And with what?
If birthers had an equally strong statement, from an equally strong authority, that would allow them NOT to prevail, but just to PULL EVEN.
But they don't.
Here we have clear evidence that President Thomas Jefferson was a DUAL CITIZEN... WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Well, we can just dismiss that as well.
On what basis? Well... mumble, mumble. Because we don't like it.
And so they try to dismiss real evidence, after real evidence, after real evidence.
And replace it with what? "Vattel says..." SO WHAT? Show me where ONE FOUNDER, ANY Founder, said that he ever listened to vattel on citizenship.
Yeah, but Ben Franklin said he liked Vattel.
So? I like cream cheese. It doesn't mean I read the packet for the definition of natural born citizen.
And meanwhile Vattel says we absolutely MUST restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the elites and the military ONLY. Well, isn't that what the liberals are arguing when they say the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the state, and not to individuals?
So if the Founding Fathers listened to Vattel on citizenship, then why the hell didn't they listen to him on the right to keep and bear arms? Or did they? So I guess we need to hand in all of our guns. Because the liberals are right.
Because Ben Franklin "liked" Vattel. Because Ben Franklin said a polite "thank you" for three books.
I'll answer DL's nonsense in the thread you mentioned in another post.
Ah. Nice theory.
But it doesn't add up, does it? You're 2 to 3 years off.
So why 14? Why not 11 or 12?
Why does the 14th mention ‘naturalized citizen’ and draws a distinction between them and ‘citizens’?
“In the Founders’ and Framers’ days, I can only assume that travel from afar was rare, the few sailing ships of the time used for commerce or warfare between England and France, and that people assumed that native citizens (people born here) were, by definition, born to parents who were already here, and not some border-crosser who arrived within days of producing a child. Any infidelity that produced a child would still have been between two existing citizens of the country, and not a temporary already-married student visiting for a few years.”
Key word here, “I assume”
This is all just speculation. What does native mean? Born in the United States. What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.
We don't like Ben Franklin's friend. We don't like George Washington's friend. So we can just tell him to kiss off.
By the way, don't ever believe that birthers are friends of the Founding Fathers. They aren't.
So kiss off, Will. We don't like what you have to say.
So then he gives four supposed examples to try and prove his point.
His first is Jefferson. Well, that's a mistake, because Jefferson contradicts him as well. Let's see what Jefferson has to say, in that 1779 law. Here's the part that's relevant:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth
and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,
and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;
and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:
And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.
Now have I done any violence to this text? No, I have not. I just removed a bunch of categories to focus on the one category that's really relevant.
Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.
This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia are citizens.
So Thomas Jefferson goes for straight jus soli. That is a complete contradiction to DL.
In other words, Thomas Jefferson says his idea is idiotic.
Okay, that's his first example. Example two.
He talks about James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in the William Smith case. Notice what words of Madison he doesn't boldface:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
So Madison says BIRTH AND NOT PARENTAGE is WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES. Now to be sure, later on he mentions Smith's parentage as well. But he's already said: BIRTH, NOT PARENTAGE, IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
So James Madison goes for straight jus soli as well, which is as much as saying DL's idea is idiotic.
Gee, DL here is batting zero for two. Well, let's go on to the third example.
He correctly mentions Lynch v Clarke as "a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen." Good for him. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke is absolutely devastating to his claim. Lynch v. Clarke, BY ITSELF, MURDERS his birther claim, unless he has EQUALLY STRONG evidence that says the exact opposite. Here's what Lynch v. Clarke says: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not."
Does he have ANYTHING comparable? No, of course not. But he doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke. So we'll sweep it under the rug.
By the way, do you notice how many things we're sweeping under the rug here? It's every damn bit of evidence. But let's go on.
He claims "the New York Legislature shortly thereafter passed a law to plug this particular hole [the fact he personally doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke, just like he doesn't like James Madison or William Rawle] in their citizenship laws."
So let's look up this law. Ah, here it is, in this book here.
And there's a very odd thing. That says on one of the front pages that the Commissioners of the Code were appointed on April 6, 1857. So that appears to be the date when they appointed people to write this law. And the book on it was actually published in 1859.
So you have Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844. And they responded to that... in 1857? Really? Thirteen years later?
So like, this gun control legislation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to push through now. That's a response to something that happened back in 2000, while Bill Clinton was still President?
Such an idea, that a particular law is a response to something 13 years earlier, is pretty idiotic, don't you think? I mean, really. Hey, we've got an immigration problem here. Well then, why don't we wait until the year 2026, and then do something about it?
So the only thing DL has really done here is bring up Lynch v. Clarke, because the idea that the New York Code he references is a response to that case is just preposterous.
And as we've seen, Lynch v Clarke takes a log and beats im over the head with it.
Well, let's try his Example 4.
He says, correctly, that the State of Maryland passed a law declaring the Marquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants, forever, to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Maryland. And he says this is jus sanguinis. Well, he's right there.
But notice what they DON'T require.
Anybody here need to be a resident of the State of Maryland?
Wait a minute. I thought the purpose here was to prove that you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
That's not what the State of Maryland told the Marquis de Lafayette.
So even his example number 4 says: In this case, at least, ONE means of getting citizenship - in this case, jus sanguinis - is enough to make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Funny. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.
So let's go for the bonus round. Finally, he brings up the Venus. Well, I don't have to shred that to little pieces. Mr Rogers has already done that for us, earlier in this thread.
So this is all the stuff that he's supposedly bringing as evidence for HIS claim. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING IS AGAINST HIM.
And every single time, he sweeps it under the rug and trys to use the crumbs as "evidence" for his birther claim.
And in reality, it's all against him. Not to mention William Rawle and the fact that Vattel never, EVER talks about "natural born citizens," and the fact that states used "natural born citizen" in EXACTLY the same way they used "natural born subject" before the Revolution, and all the rest of it.
So he doesn't have a case. But like all birthers, he keeps making it anyway. Because there's nothing that beats reality... like fantasy.
And do you know what the birther MO is?
Any time you have an argument that falls to pieces, pretend it didn’t happen. Don’t blush. Just act like it never happened.
If you have 5 arguments in a row that are total and complete nonsense, hey, that’s no sign that your theory is cracked, or that you are wrong or incompetent. Just switch to something else. Let’s talk about some other guy for a while.
And you NEVER RETRACT any of the stuff that is just total nonsense. You just save it for another day, when another audience may not know that it’s been kicked to pieces so many times you can’t even find all the pieces.
So it’s not about the truth. It’s just a game. See how many times you can recycle the same debunked arguments. See how many more people you can fool. I have no doubt DL can do it for another 5 or 10 years.
First, ad hominem attacks on a class of individuals, whose strongest motive is their wish for the Constitution to be obeyed, carries no effect with me, other than to diminish the credibility of the one who uses such tactics. This is not about “fantasy” or “being had” or “mumble mumble.” This is about good people with differing views of law and history trying to reconcile those differences and achieve a higher understanding of both.
Pushing past the ad hominem, I do not understand why you think your argument from friendship is persuasive. Any small hint uttered in court by a U.S. Justice is orders of magnitude more valuable, because it comes from the seat of authority. But instead you rely on an unproven and perhaps unprovable assumption that a person known to some of the founders was speaking for all of them on an issue of law that was already convoluted and uncertain in the minds of many first generation American jurists, with no evidence that they ever discussed the matter. In court this wouldn’t even rise to hearsay. Worthless.
For example, in law school, we had many conversations as students, with much variety of opinion, yet I would count myself a good friend to these people, even if there were some areas of the law we did not discuss, and even if in some of those unspoken areas we might prove later to differ. The friendship argument is a nullity, an argument from silence, and of no value in advancing the discussion.
Furthermore, I note that you are unresponsive to the grandfather clause argument. That is your choice. There are times I too simply ignore an argument, because I recognize that the judge is not interested, and wants to be convinced on some other basis. I try to accommodate my audience. It doesn’t always work. But if you just ignore key objections to your argument, you have no chance of persuading your audience at all.
Just sayin …
Domo for the Ping. Geez, I step out for a few, and nex thing you know, there’s a 700-post thread needs reading through.
You do NOT want my son to be president! lol!
Oh, boy.... that’s a thought! 8-/
And make Sarah Palin Sec. of State.
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.