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.
lol. My kids think I’m stupid and of questionable sanity too. I tell them I inherited it from my kids. lol
The descendants of the original citizenry received citizenship as a matter of course.41 The new comers to America, the immigrants who came in after the founding generation, themselves gained citizenship, by means of naturalization under laws enacted by Congress. Children born to them after they became citizens gained citizenship at birth, again as a matter of course. But what about children born to these naturalized citizens before they became citizens, while they were yet aliens?
Here, the answer was provided, clearly and positively, by Congress, as in its first session it enacted the immigration and naturalization “Act of 1790”.42 Immigration and naturalization, as Rep. James Madison then put it, was not a right but rather a “privilege”. In context, “privilege” denoted that Congress might properly limit immigration and naturalization to persons of commitment, to one who “really meant to incorporate himself into our society” and of a character sufficient to add to the “wealth and strength of community”.43 Character as thus stated included republican virtues as opposed to the servile, class-ordered mentalities—the “sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments”—then associated with the old world.44
Upon showing character and commitment, by compliance with the terms of naturalization, immigrants became citizens. And so did children born to them before they were naturalized. The 1790 Act provided that upon naturalization all of their children “dwelling within the United States shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice, these children are not made citizens by means of jus soli: It mattered not whether these children had been born in the United States or abroad. Rather, citizenship was attuned to jus sanguines. It turned on the connection of their parents to the United States, that they had become United States citizens.
____________________________________________________________
41 As explained in a thoughtful opinion:
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution . . . was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. Minor v. Happensett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).
42 Act of March 26, 1790, entitled An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, 1 Stat. 103.
43 I Annals of Cong. 1150 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
44 Id. at1156 (Rep. Sedgwick). Sedgwick later defined republican virtue as “habits of temperate discussion, patient reasoning, and a capacity of enduring contradiction.” 2 Annals at 571. Sedgwick also would exclude exploiters, those seeking short term gain without long-term commitment. Id. The whole debate was consistent with modern notions about political communities. As explained by Michael Walzer, “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be . . . historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 61 (1983).
Let me respond to your posts by saying this. I am a former birther. I was aware of this ineligibility question about 4 months prior to Obama’s election, when Philip Berg brought the issue forth. I thought it was intruiging, so I began to follow it.
I noticed that the cases were being dumped with the reason that there is no standing to sue, because he isn’t president yet. But then, after he became president, cases were being tossed due to lack of standing because everyone was equally injured...After every single case and every possible argument was tossed, it became clear to me that no one in authority wanted to touch this. I was angered by this, as were many others.
So I thought to myself, I cannot keep investing myself in these cases only to have my hopes crushed, honestly it was infuriating, and it’s tough to live with a high level of anger.
One day I heard Mark Steyn speak directly to a well reasoned birther who called into Rush’s show. Steyn offered a very reasoned counter argument to the NBC situation, saying that of all the things one can hold Obama accountable for, you want to hold him accountable for the one thing he isn’t responsible for, his location of birth.
It was at this time that it began to dawn on me that all those things we can hold him accountable for, we simply overlooked, or didn’t pay attention, or simply didn’t care, and now, mostly after the fact, we want to call foul and say oh no, it didn’t count, you were never qualified, and we are going to get a judge to toss you out.
Such a course of action, should it succeed, presents a number of problems. It ignores the fact that we, the electorate, chose to ignore his myraid flaws, including being a marxist, a muslim, and a fraud. I still believe that he isn’t who he says he is, and that his documantation is in fact false.
However, should any given judge take it upon himself to oust the president, then we have a situation where an unelected offical has considerably more power than the elected president of america, and thus, more power than anyone in the country. If we can use a judge to remove a president, even for a valid reason, then so can they, and I trust their reasons won’t be valid, and I also trust that there are plenty of left wing judges who would go along with that.
It also opens the whole possibility of people rioting, because they don’t like it, and if ever done to our guys, then we may riot for the same reason. It changes the balance of government utterly should we go down that path. And we would go down that path all in an effort to not be held accountable for something we allowed to happen on our watch as free people.
This is why I have come to the opinion that we caused this, and we must solve it. We have to find a way to convince those who weren’t smart enough or observant enough in 2008 that we can never allow this to happen again.
As a free person, I don’t want to put the job of guarding my freedom in the hands of a person in a black robe. I don’t trust those in black robes whatsoever. I want to put the job of guarding America’s freedom in the hands of those who have the most to lose, and that is her people.
Truly, if we whom are free do not see fit to guard that freedom by voting smartly, then no judge can save of from the tyranny we hoist upon ourselves.
I believe we must demonstrate our fierce will to be from to anyone who wishes to take it, be they from outside this country or from within. They must fear us, not for violence, but for our intellect. If they look at us as stupid, then they will attack our freedom, as they are doing now.
If we fail to do that, then we will demonstrate for all other people, those here now and those to come, that a free society is but a mere and fleeting illusion to the the usual tyranny of mankind.
While I agree that the constitution is and should be a failsafe to prevent situtions like this from occurring, that fact of the matter is, it did not prevent it, as our taking for granted our freedom proved too formidable for even the constitution of the United States Of America.
Thus we are the last line of defense, you and me and Fantasywriter and everyone else who loves America. So let us defend our freedom with our God given right to vote.
No. 09-5801 (2010 heard on Nov 10th)
Supreme Court of the United States
RUBEN FLORES-VILLAR, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
(“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”). In exchange for permission to “settle and stay,” aliens were “bound to the society by their residence . . . subject to the laws of the state[.]” Id. Such allegiances were required even though a permitted alien did “not participate in all the rights of citizens.” [footnote: For examples of eighteenth century analysis of Vattel, see generally ST. GEORGE TUCKER, A LETTER TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS (1799)]
Lol. Sounds like a fun, wonderful family.
As for the rest, if we have to be kicked around on the Net, I’d rather it happen by the moonbattiest of Obama’s most blind, rabid supporters than by anybody else. They say you can tell a lot about a person from their enemies. You and I are making all the right ones. ;)
Not sure if I’ll have the time to read the whole thread - but I’ll make an effort tomorrow if I can’t today. (Two batches of jam today plus this and that, not a lot of energy right now!).
Generally speaking, anyone who thinks it rude if people ask if he is pro-life is really on the wrong forum!
Forgot to say that RUBEN FLORES-VILLAR (Petitioner) lost, the United States (Respondent) using the citing of Vattel won the case whose opinion was just released this past June. so that kinda puts to rest that notion that the US Govt does not hold the works of Vattel as important to defining US citizenship.
No. 09-5801 (2010 heard on Nov 10th)
Supreme Court of the United States
RUBEN FLORES-VILLAR, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.pdf
I did find ‘em, right nearby.
No conservative would find it rude to be asked if they are pro-life, and a real conservative can only have one answer.
The jam sounds so good. You are amazing!
As for not knowing when life begins, unable/unwilling to say if RU486 is good, bad or indifferent, rude-even-to-ask about such things...they always give themselves away.
Fact of life, especially FR life: they *always* give themselves away.
I’m a “seat of the pants” canner. Recipes? No way.
(Just fruit, no pressure canning yet.)
You sure you want to go here?
“Flores-Villar was born in Mexico, out of wedlock, to a United States citizen father and foreign mother. Under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401 and 1409, United States citizen fathers of non-marital children born abroad may only transmit United States citizenship if the father had resided in the United States continuously for at least five years after age fourteen. On the other hand, United States citizen mothers with foreign-born non-marital children are only required to have one year residence in the United States to transmit citizenship. Flores-Villar challenged his Section 1325 conviction on the grounds that the differential residency requirements of 1401 and 1409 make an impermissible classification based on gender that resulted in his alien status.”
“Holding: An equally divided Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding, against a constitutional challenge, a citizenship-transmission statute that imposes different standards for children born out of wedlock outside of the United States depending on whether the child’s mother or father is a U.S. citizen. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: By a vote of four to four (because Justice Kagan was recused), the Court allowed the lower court’s decision to stand; that decision rejected the argument that a federal law which establishes different standards for children born out of wedlock outside of the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship, depending on whether the child’s mother or father was a U.S. citizen, is unconstitutional.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/flores-villar-v-united-states/
They did not base their decision on Vattel’s definition. If they had, he would have been declared a citizen of the US: “Flores-Villar was born in Mexico, out of wedlock, to a United States citizen father and foreign mother.”
The citizenship of the father would, under Vattel, automatically apply to the mother, and his birthplace would be irrelevant - under Vattel.
You have to know what you’re doing to not need a recipe. I bet that jam is delicious!
Well-said, and that is what I very much want to do. If the R’s don’t botch it, it is exactly what I will do.
But it seems like the R’s don’t “get it”.
For instance, would it change Mark Steyn’s view at all if he really realized that the Obama machine was responsible for conservative and liberal on-air personalities being told they or their families could be killed if they or any of their guests brought up the eligibility issue? We’re not talking about some theoretical Marxist coup being dreamed up by Obama’s buddies 40 years ago; we’re talking about a right-now Marxist takeover of the White House fueled by mafia-type extortion. It’s not a matter of paying attention to Obama’s Marxism INSTEAD OF the eligibility issue; the eligibility issue IS HIS MARXIST TAKEOVER. It was accomplished by criminal extortion of the conservative media.
The First Amendment enshrines the importance of a free press. Through criminal activity Obama’s Marxist overlords got rid of the free press without ever arguing a legal case about it.
And that criminal endeavor - covered up by media, law enforcement, Congress, the military, and the courts - gave Obama access to deactivate all the protective infrastructure: inspectors general, FBI, CIA, military, courts, media, FCC, FEC, Homeland Security, Department of State, etc ad nauseum. Obama could rot in Hell as a Marxist and none of us would be any the worse off UNLESS he had access to the system, to be the trojan worm that kills all the security protections and takes over with its own agenda.
It would be silly to focus on Outlook Express malfunctioning as if that was the entire problem when the whole computer has been taken over by a worm. The problem is the worm, not Outlook Express. Outlook Express is powerless to do anything except what the worm tells it to do. The worm replaces the normal functions that people assume the computer is doing.
People voted for Obama, quite frankly, because Obama was not in jail for crimes he committed, including the crimes of forgery, perjury, and extortion. The reason he wasn’t in jail was because we had nobody in law enforcement who would even check him out, in spite of probable cause. We don’t have to dig deep into the politics and culture to figure this one out. Blatant corruption was what made the guy even AVAILABLE to be voted for.
The FBI that refused to investigate Obama’s forgeries is the same FBI that hid the Fast & Furious gun that was used to kill a border patrol agent. It’s all cloth from the same bolt. Steyn can draw distinctions between Marxist and Marxist, but it makes no sense to poo-pooh the crimes that gave Obama the power he has and then expect anybody to care about the same kind of crimes he’s done since he got the position of power.
See, Obama is not responsible for where he was born, as you say. But he IS responsible for lying about it, for forging legal documents in order to commit fraud, for stealing a dead little girl’s BC# for heaven’s sake, for signing affidavits saying he is somebody he’s not, for going right along with his owners’ threats to innocent people, for putting an honorable military officer in jail for 6 months and bankrupting his family simply for asking the question of whether Obama is eligible to issue combat orders... I could go on and on and on. He did all those things so that he could get access to do the damage he and his buddies have been planning for a very long time. Crooks will be crooks. The problem isn’t the existence of crooks; that’s a given. The problem is when the people who are supposed to CATCH AND STOP crooks refuse to do so.
I don’t think Obama had much chance of turning out any way besides the way he did. I don’t blame him for what he’s become, nor am I chiefly angry at him for what he’s done to this country. I’m chiefly angry at the people who have taken sacred oaths to recognize and stop people like him from doing the CRIMES he has done - and have pissed on their oaths and spit on those of us who find that appalling.
The judges don’t have the job of ousting Obama. That job belongs to law enforcement, who should have thrown him in jail a long, long time ago, and Congress who is supposed to replace a President who is unable to discharge his duties. But the judges DO have the job of interpreting and applying the law and Constitution. And that is all I and many others want them to do.
I really relate to your story. So familiar. I think a lot of us are dealing with the same history and we deal with it in different ways. That’s natural, and I can respect that. I’ve been taking a break from the eligibility issue for a while because I thought it was futile and we may be able to deal with regaining the rule of law better after somebody else is in the White House and DOJ. I so very, very much want to help turn things around by getting somebody decent in the White House and thus also in the cabinet and regulatory positions. That is so critical. And we can do it, but not if our side plays “chicken” on eligibility.
I have pretty much tuned out all the “conservative” talkers because they have nothing but contempt for me - as if those who hate extortion after the inauguration are too good for those who hate the extortion that led to the inauguration. It’s all the same thing. How can somebody smugly turn their nose at those who hate pre-inauguration extortion, while claiming they are superior because they hate post-inauguration extortion? It’s a false distinction - one these people are too intelligent to make blindly, and it makes me wonder why they do it. But most of all it just makes me want to stay away from them, just like I want to stay away from the crooks who are robbing the country dry in DC.
None of these people have done a thing to earn my trust, and this game of “chicken” gives me the same feeling my daughter got when her “friends” made dead baby jokes after finding out her sister had been stillborn at 42 weeks. Just have to give that knife a twist before pulling it out of a “friend’s” gut...
No thanks. I don’t need friends like that.
“How did SCOTUS take up Roe v Wade?”
I’m not familiar with the all the incidental details of Roe, but for the Court to hear it (or hear any other case), either Norma McCorvey or her opponent (would that have been “Wade”) first had to petition the Court to accept the case. Of course, the side that asks to be heard is [almost] always the one that previously lost in the appellate courts.
Many more petitions to have cases heard are filed with the Court than are accepted by them. At their conferences, the Justices pick and choose what they will hear, based upon what [I guess] are a series of traditional criteria.
But unless and until McCorvey (or Wade) petitioned them to weigh the case, the Court would never decide the issue “on its own”. To believe otherwise is, well, fantasy.
This is why the Bush/Gore Florida vote-stealing case took awhile to be settled by the Court — the Justices could not act until the case was brought before them.
This is why ObamaCare is taking a while to wend its way up to the Supreme Court — because it had to be heard by the lower courts before it could be brought before the Supremes. And that was only after there had been conflicting opinions from more than one federal district court circuit.
But to petition is different than having a “case” - according to current rules of “standing”. Roe’s lawyers petitioned the court but SCOTUS acknowledged when they accepted the case that it technically didn’t meet the requirements to BE a “case”, because by that time Norma McCorvey already had her baby and so her case was not justiciable.
According to the claims of the lower courts, none of the people who petitioned SCOTUS to accept their eligibility case even HAD a “case”, because they lacked “standing”.
Maybe what we’ve got here is a misunderstanding. I should have said that SCOTUS could take up any petition before them regardless of whether the filer was granted legal “standing” by lower courts. That was what I meant. Would you still say that is not accurate? I didn’t mean to say that they could just decide they wanted to make a ruling about something not even presented to them. But the eligibility issue WAS presented to them - presumably because they had the option of accepting, hearing, and deciding the case - and they refused to take it up even though nothing was stopping them from doing so.
Being a fool plus having six cups of coffee and full of nervous energy, I went to the linky thingy and found what they were quoting in Villar whatever in a Amicus Curie brief. Which none of it made no sense anyway, and I should have known better than to even try. One of the things about helpful new citizens was by the guy who wrote Robinson Crusoe, a well known constitutional scholar of the United States.
These people who do not understand others take of wording and history of the Constitution are indeed living with the consequences of their position in the person of Obama. It is of no consequence to them that such a person as Obama can be given the power of the USA government for personal change and the Constitutional remedy would be to just turn the table for installing a personal choice. To ridicule the need for parent’s citizenship of a person’s eligibility for POTUSA is not comforting to me, as a person in much the same situation as Rubio, but accepting what I believe is the true historical intent for the Nation. These people should realize that today the question is being centered around Rubio, in future years it could very well center around another Obama. I don’t like the idea of such a misguided precedent for this Nation’s children.
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.