Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
I don't dispute that, but the Naturalization act of 1790 indicates that the founders would accept a man's children as "natural born citizens" if he came to reside in America and become an American citizen. So also, does the Virginia declaration on who shall be deemed a citizen.
Furthermore, I have read the debates on enacting the Naturalization act of 1790, and they indicated the founders were VERY INTERESTED in getting people to come here and become citizens. Senate Debate. House Debate.
Now you may argue that an act of congress cannot redefine the meaning of an Article of Constitutional law, but it can lend insight into how the framers understood what they wrote in the constitution. Judging by their intent to extend "natural born" status to the children of foreign males intent upon becoming Americans, I would not wave it away without some very good supporting evidence that this view is inconsistent with their intent in writing article II.
I am not arguing that this idea is firm in my mind, I am arguing that I can see it as a plausible theory. Obviously those born in the country to American Citizens are the gold standard for the term, but congress seemed to be willing to award a silver medal as well. The fact that this standard still completely excludes Obama, and allows for someone I like, appeals to my partisan nature as well. :)
So you are an originalist?
“Vattel used the French term for native which is exactly what YHVH defined in the Scriptures.”
But it wasn’t the term “natural born citizen”. And the laws of tribal membership have nothing to do with the laws of US citizenship.
Go to Switzerland. They require citizen parents to be born a citizen - just like Vattel, and just like you claim God wants. You’ll be happy there.
Or maybe not. God didn’t give Israel the right to vote, and He didn’t give them a democracy. Perhaps you need to find a monarchy. Maybe you could try Afghanistan - they still have tribes...
Or try going to court, and claiming God doesn’t want Obama in office - that you KNOW what God wants, and God wants Obama thrown out of office. Let me know what the court replies!
And birthers wonder why Levin thinks they are nuts?
Yes, and so it was with ancient England whose people were called the Saxons and who also adhered to the definition proffered by Vattel. But Vattel didn't make up this definition out of some great revelation of his own, He took it from the Scriptures which he quotes quite incessantly in his works as well as that of Locke, Grotius, Pufendorf, etc whom all proceeded Vattel in writing on Natural law & International Law of Nations and whom all relied on the Scriptures for definitions of natural citizenry.
Fantasywriter, this is becoming tedious.
It doesn’t matter what I am.
The only thing that matters is is the electorate of america smart enough to reverse its own suicide.
I could be Patrick Henry himself, but that won’t matter a hill of beans should a majority of my countrymen choose to re-elect Obama.
Your attempt to focus this issue through such a narrow prism is why birtherism is dangerous. It fails to address the root of our problem.
You are trying to save the electorate from its own stupdity via a legal technicality, meanwhile you are ignoring the stupidity of the electorate.
It’s so very simple, it makes me want to pull my hair out.
We are either smart enough to realize our mistake and correct it, or we aren’t.
That is reality.
Au Contraire, Mon Frère! It is the crux around which everything revolves. Your silence says more than you realize. It is the inverse of Sean Connery's point in the Untouchables:
"Who would claim to be that who was not?" 
Those who are pro-life are not ashamed to say so.
If you could stop accusing me of so many things you’re making up out of whole cloth, perhaps you could answer a simple, yes or no question.
Are you, personally, an Originalist?
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
I interpret this to mean that a foreign man can have natural born children (even if born beyond the sea) as long as he is a resident in the United States, and has expressed his intent to become a citizen. Granted, I get some of this interpretation from the House and Senate debates on the issue as well as the Virginia act on who shall be deemed a citizen, but that is what I am suggesting it means.
Sorry, you read wrong. For naturalization, the person must have remained in the US until after the naturalization process was complete in order to attain naturalization. Only until recently was that changed and it is very, very limited at that.
I believe you have the situation and consequences correct. Rubio is not a NBC using parentage as a qualification. Thinking beyond wishing , why would a citizen of the USA want to have a child of non citizens who all own allegiance to a foreign nation be POTUSA. I don’t buy it just because the child is a good guy.
meh. Not really. I like my boundaries clearly defined, not ambiguous, but perhaps close enough for my purpose.
Now what does that have to do with natural-born citizenship?
You concede that life does not start at birth, but at some time before that. Therefore, birth is not the criteria by which "person" status should be judged. Life is an inherent characteristic of a child, not something that "descends" upon it suddenly upon it's emergence from the womb. It is a natural and inherent condition of it's existence. Life isn't something that suddenly occurs upon birth. Why should citizenship?
Place of birth is arbitrary. You could put a pregnant woman on a merry-go-round straddling the border, the child could be alternately Mexican or American, depending on the timing. (Reductio ad absurdum.)
The argument that "Life" or "Person" status descends upon a child upon birth is a Liberal argument. Conservatives who believe in natural law understand that what is "natural" are those conditions already inherent in it's existence. Those who support abortion will argue some arbitrary man made threshold, but those who support life will recognize the boundaries as defined by Nature and Nature's God.
I would like to make a shorter/better explanation, but I don't have the time. I am rushed and I have to go now. I think you can see the gist of it though. Later people.
Works of Hon. James Wilson Vol I(1791): "The common law, as now received in America, bears, in its principles, and in many of its more minute particulars, a stronger and a fairer resemblance to the common law as it was improved under the Saxon, than to that law, as it was disfigured under the Norman government."
Works of Hon. James Wilson Vol II (1791): "Is the dignity of man degraded by observing a law ? The Supreme of Being !—he himself worketh not without a rule!
In a moral view, self government increases, instead of impairing, the security, the liberty, and the dignity of the man; in a political view, self government increases, instead of impairing, the security, the liberty, and the dignity of the citizen.
Attend now to the result of the whole.—In a free and (well constituted government, the first duty of its every member is—obedience to the laws. That they be true and faithful to themselves, is the allegiance, which a legitimate republick requires from her citizens : to themselves they cannot be true and faithful, unless they obey as well as make the laws—unless, in the terms in which a citizen has been denned, they partake of subordination as well as of power.
As a citizen of a republican government owes obedience to the laws ; so he owes a decent, though a dignified respect to those who administer the laws. In monarchies, there is a political respect of person : in commonwealths, there should be a political respect to office. In monarchies, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities, all personal and hereditary. In commonwealths, too, there are ranks, preeminences, arid dignities; but all official and successive. In monarchies, respect is paid without a prospect of return. In commonwealths, ' one may, next year, succeed, as an officer, to the respect, which, this year, he pays as a citizen. The dignities of office are open to all.
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons. Between dignity and duty, no separation was made by them. In the early period of the Anglo-Saxon state, the allodial proprietors were numerous; their estates were generally small; and all were understood to be of the same rank and condition. Some, indeed, were distinguished above others by their character and their talents; but the superiority derived from this source was accompanied with no legal preeminence or power."
Paranoia -
1. Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2.
baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others
I hope to see you on November 2, 2012, because, let me tell you, that day matters.
I’d like to leave you with this, Fantasywriter, in case you still wonder where I stand.
Please enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOvA-Hn4_ZM&feature=related
Evasion/avoidance: refusal to answer a simple yes or no question.
Projection: accusing someone else of doing what in fact you’re doing yourself.
I should add that Scott Gerber in To Secure These Rights makes a reasonable argument the intention of the Constitution was to secure the legal principles enumerated in the Declaration.
ML/NJ
Oh, Dresden IS in Germany because I looked it up and guess what??? The Saxony stuff you are quoting is Saxony, GERMANY. Sooo, is it close enough to Switzerland where Vattle was from to count???
You would be correct as England was part of German Saxony before she became England. One could even say that merry ole England is as much of a mutt from all the different lineage she has, as does America. Not all about her is bad, just the feudal law part that came into play after the Norman conquest. But it seems merry ole England has restored part of her original constitution back because as of just a few years ago, birthright (jus soli) citizenship is no longer the law.
Well you would certainly know about that.
How did SCOTUS take up Roe v Wade? They said straight out that by the time they would get the case through the appeals process “Roe” would no longer be pregnant and would thus not have a justiciable case - i.e. would not have “standing”. But they took up the case anyway.
How/why did the eligibility cases where standing was denied by the lower courts ever make it to conference with SCOTUS, if SCOTUS couldn’t do anything about it anyway? And how does due process happen for those who are wrongly denied “standing” in the lower courts?
These are honest questions.
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.