Posted on 10/02/2009 3:35:27 PM PDT by MissTickly
the adults in his life failed him, making him part of what he is today.
it’s a nice picture.
LOL! Good questions all! Hope we get discovery and we can solve some of these missing document puzzles.
From the Common Worship Lectionary for Sunday, Oct. 4, Morning Prayer: Luke 12:2 — “Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.”
Pray for Judge Carter!
Vattel is giving his opinion which certainly has a great deal of authority for the Founders. However, it still is only that and is not part of the Constitution. And the way he gives his opinion seems to suggest that there are other legitimate views.
Given that Blacks’s does not give a definition of “native born” just “native” leads me to the conclusion that the concept “native born” is not different, in point of law, from natural born as has been applied in US law.
This is even worse than expected for being in a murky realm of the law. I just checked Black’s definition of “citizen” under American law and did not find the term “native-born” or “natural-born”. Only the terms “naturalized” or “born” which also substantiates my conclusion that there is no significant difference between “born in” and “natural-born”. Certainly as applies to the qualifications for the presidency it has never been before a court.
There is also no doubt that the determination of a child’s citizenship through the father has no validity under today’s law.
This is a fascitating line of conversation from many perspectives and shows a great deal of light on social relations among other issues.
See #204.
There is no requirement of birth on native soil for the son of two US citizens serving at the behest of the US government out of the country to be a natural born citizen.
The idea that he would not is a mockery of the views of the Founders. Since allegiance is primary in determination of citizenry there is no allegiance higher than of the parent who is following his nation’s orders as was McCain’s.
It is ridiculous to believe that ANY of the Founders would have supported such a twisted view. Your hatred of a national hero is not good legal underpinning for a theory.
Legal theory of the time clearly references the offspring of the officers of the king or state as being full citizens of the sovereignty when born aboard. Many of these reached the highest levels of government and society in the history of Europe confirming this view.
My questions are fairly clear though a point made by another will generate another unconsidered question.
My view is extremely simple. If Urkle was born in Hawaii he is eligible. I have no idea if he was and am cognizent of contrary prima facia information.
Educate us where deficient.
Urkle’s trips to Kenya can have another interpretation: attempting to development expertise wrt Africa and its countries which is certainly how he would phrase it. Now we know he was meddling in Kenyan political affairs to the benefit of his family but nobody cares about that.
Having love for another country or hate for one will not disqualify him or anyone else from the presidency. At the Founding many of those fighting for Independence were citizens of England, Poland, France etc. Since the option was left in the Constitution for those here 14 yrs prior to ratification of becoming president I have no doubt that just having a love of one’s country of birth was no disqualification. So that ain’t getting Urkle out.
We can probably agree that he basically hates the US but it will not be provable or, outside actual provable treason, sufficient to remove him from the office. At any rate, I would say up to 25% of the population also hates this nation.
Interpretation of what the Constitution means is nothing new nor outside the constitutional mechanism. Not liking certain rulings does not mean the process of getting to them was inappropriate.
Congressional discussion at the proposal of the 14th indicates clearly that children born to illegals were not to be considered citizens.
Like much of the law of that period Vattel has been superceded in many respects including what constitutes citizenship.
As I said above Black’s does not even have a definition or distinction within “citizen” which creates more than two class of citizen: natural born and naturalized.
But, you are correct, there is NO question under VAttel that McCain is fully qualified to be president.
Those statements are not confirmed under law. As I said Black’s does not define “native born” as being anything different than “natural born”.
Congress is given the authority under the Constitution to create the mechanism to become a naturalized citizen.
Urkle’s fraud machine has been in my sights for long before he was heard of on a national scene. The whole crew surrounding him is my enemies. Emanual was my representative and Ayers I have been aware of since 1968 and his brother.
I watched him get his opponents disqualified when they ran against him. Including his Senate seat where a outstanding Republican candidate was run out because of an alledged sex scandel the “evidence” of which was in SEALED court records of a divorce. The Chicago Tribune sued to have them unsealed and a California court did it.
Now it never occurred to me that he would run for the presidency if not qualified. Murder, theft, embezzlement, extortion sure.
Yes, that appears to be the case.
I do not defend it on common sense or any other grounds.
If you are born here and claim you are a citizen no further action is necessary you are indeed a citizen. Hence millions of “anchor babies”. Until the courts rule otherwise this appears to be the case.
My understanding is that Barack was born when Ann was still 17.
As you mentioned, Vattel states his opinions and well founded reasoning in ‘The Law of Nations’, which I believe ties together much of British Common Law, common sense, and sound reasoning. Even though there may have been other legitimate views, they were not put forth in one authoritative tome such as his (at least not that of which I am aware) and thus, IMO, not as likely to have been widely relied upon by the Founding Fathers and legal scholars of that time.
I believe, sir, that if we were opposing counsel in a pertinent case on this subject, we would have a grand ol’ time. It would be interesting to see how the judge would rule. (Of course I would first have to get a law degree and pass the Bar, LOL.)
But they were not given the power to define "natural born citizen". The statutes do not mention "natural born". The only that did was the 1790 immigration law, which was repealed and replaced by the 1795 law, which dropped the words "natural born" when speaking of persons born outside the US of citizen parents. Why did they change it? Well, although I don't know, and probably no one else does either, I speculate that they figured out they could not redefine a Constitutional term under their power to define an uniform rule of naturalization. Which by the way, was the title of both the 1790 and 1795 acts, "An Act to Define an Uniform Rule of Naturalization".
The Founder with whose life I am most familiar is Alexander Hamilton. His legal study (he took three months to study for the bar when normally it took three yrs.) was Vattel, Puffendorff, Locke, Blackstone, Berlamaqui, Montesquieu, Grotius, and Postlethwayte as well as the rulings of English Common law. Since Hamilton was the best lawyer in the country I cannot say that others learned their lessons as well as he.
Yes, if they are born here they are citizens. But, it was not always so. It took the 14th amendment to make this happen. So, it required a statute to make them citizens and it did not make them natural born citizens, it made them citizens by statute.
According to wikipedia and other bios I’ve seen, Ann was born Nov 29, 1942. That means she would be 19 years old in Nov 1961. Barack was supposed to have been born Aug 4, 1961, a few months before she turned 19.
Michelle Obama, said in a speech that Barack’s mother was “very young and very single when she had him.” So, I don’t know how reliable the above info is regarding the birthdates of Barack and his mother.
The section of the 14th “subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...” is ignored and rules out interlopers and illegals. Or was intended to.
Do you mean that you agree with me that if a person is here illegally, or as a foreign student on visa, or as a foreign tourist visiting the US... any children born here of them are not meant to be US citizens by our Constitution?
It is my opinion, the words “subject to US jurisdiction” keeps those born here under these circumstances from being recognized as US citizens.
None of the people above are subject to our jurisdiction for the purposes of extending citizenship. They are only temporarily subject during their stay. Then only to obeying our laws while here. Unless, they seek a legal way to remain here and become citizens, they are not subjecting themselves to US jurisdiction.
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.