Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a "resident within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen"
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Just to be clear on what you think, are you saying that if one's parent is from another country, even if that parent becomes an American citizen before the child is born, the child cannot be an NBC?
Maybe you just got caught up in brevity? Once the parent becomes an American citizen, their place of birth is no longer relevant when conferring natural born citizenship on their children. It's only when one parent has not yet become an American citizen that the child fails the NBC test.
-PJ
Thank you
“’In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.’ Ex parte Lockwood , 154 U.S. 116 (1894)”
Obama would not even be a citizen if this holding in the Minor case was comprehensive, but it applies to only one type of citizen which Minor happened to be and which the Ex parte Lockwood court did not need to mention, that being NBC.
The foregoing holding of Ex parte Lockwood does not include the phrase “natural born citizen” but this description of Minor's citizenship was EQUATED TO “natural born citizen” as a definition of NBC in the very next sentence in the Minor holding. It is this definition of NBC in the Minor holding that applied the law, (in this case the Constitution) to the facts in the holding.
Note that the holding in Minor which the Ex parte Lockwood court cited as precedent as a description of Minor's citizenship EXCLUDES Obama!
Obama is not an NBC and is not eligible as defined in Minor and confirmed in Lockwood.
It depends on which Birther you ask.
Some are of the ‘Father needs to be a citizen, but not the mother’ sect and others are of the ‘two parent’ sect.
MMaschin wrote: “What the heck are you talking about? Are you saying that when the SCOTUS cites ‘Minor’, it is doing so as both precedent, and dicta???? LOL!”
No, I’m saying what I wrote of course: Since they were stating the holding they left out the dicta about “natural born”. Your own citation of ex parte Lockwood speaks against your position.
That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
Fear.
After analysis of Vattel, why...after all these years, do you continue to misspell his name?
I realize that your angle is that of foreign birth, and that you believe the founders thought half foreigners were considered natural born Citizens, but at least get the guy's name right.
And speaking of Congress employing this guy...since the CRS does work for Congress can you tell me which member, or members, of that body asked for this report?I wasn't claiming inside information. Pointing out that you had the Congressional Research Service in the wrong branch of government required only the most basic grade-school-level understanding. Glad to see you checked out and confirmed my facts.Congressional Research ServiceSurely Mr. Maskell didn't undertake this unsolicited and of his own accord...did he?
As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
That said, I think you're likely correct to assume that this report was motivated by queries from members of Congress. That's what the CRS does. The questions are plausibly the result of constituents writing with concerns. That's all perfectly reasonable.
What's nuts are the conspiracy theories.
Triple wrote:
yep - he got his 30 pieces of silver.Well then cite your evidence that he received some bribe to to slant his analysis. Surely, Triple, you wouldn't compare a man to Judas without such evidence, would you?
51 wrote:
So does Congress know that it still has a problem? Yes. Did they ask for this report for cover? Yes. Does the report lie to provide that cover? Yes.Any evidence, 51, besides the fact that the report debunks your legal theory? If a senator or representative gets question on the matter from constituents, why is asking for analysis from the experts congress employs some kind of shady deal?
If there's one thing birthers hate more than not getting answers to their questions, it's getting answers to their questions.
You're not helping yourself. The part you cited says;Note the *vast* difference between what the Court said, just as I quoted, and what you say the court said.women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as sinceThis includes a criteria of parents being citizens and it is as much a part of citizenship SINCE the 14th amendment as it was since
DiogenesLamp wrote: “Congress has no authority to re-define constitutional terms.”
So they asked the experts they employ.
Jack Haskell is a Democrat.
This whole effort to place a usurper in the White House has been in the works for sometime.
Jack Haskell is a Democrat.
This whole effort to place a usurper in the White House has been in the works for sometime.
rxsid wrote: “After analysis of Vattel, why...after all these years, do you continue to misspell his name?”
Stupid as that comment was, is a spelling flame really what you’ve got?
SatinDoll wrote: “This whole effort to place a usurper in the White House has been in the works for sometime.”
Whether or not it was the conspiracy you imagine, the CRS report does recognize the time scale: “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.
What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.
There’s no vast difference. Fuller was quoting from the syllabus in Minor. Fuller is also the guy who dissented in Wong Kim Ark and cited Vattel in defining natural-born citizen. That same definition nearly matches the Minor definition verbatim. It’s the same definition that Gray cited verbatim and affirmed was due to citizen parents in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark. You should be seeing a pattern now. Natural-born = born in the country to citizen parents. There’s no other reason to say anything about the parents being citizens.
The CRS report seems to be emphasizing foreign birth. Is someone getting ready to let the cat out of the bag on the Kenyan-born Obama??
You’re full of crap. Jack Haskell is a traitor who has worked to undermine this government and collapse it from within, just like the others who’ve been a part of this un-American effort.
The Democratic Party sent a Congressional Rep to Jakarta to spread around money, buying up all government documents and Soetoro photos - July 2007. Hell, Obama left there as a ten year old; if he was truly born in Hawaii, what could possibly be damageing enough to hide in Indonesia?
Obama himself sent a million dollars to his “cousin”, supposedly to help that man’s election effort to be President of Kenya. That failed, but it was a good cover for terrorizing the Christian ministries and murdering off missionaries who knew EVERYTHING about BHO2’s past, and where he was really born.
“What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents.”
Typical communist lie, repeated often enough so you and your comrades hope it will drown out truth - like the Justia.com surgical removal of Minor v. Happersett from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in the run up to the 2008 election.
Truth is the daughter of time, Bryan. You and your comrades are running out of that commodity.
I still have yet to see your opinion on this article:Did I ever claim you should see such my response on that? To the best of my recollection, my last FR post relating to Second Amendment rights was in this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2752219/posts?q=1&;page=1http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/11/michelle-obamas-warning-to-gun-owners/
How is any of that relevant to the issue here?
Thanks for the Ping!
edge919 wrote: “There’s no vast difference.”
Well, not in your comment after you snip them both.
edge919 wrote: “Fuller was quoting from the syllabus in Minor.”
MMaschin noted that Fuller was stating the holding in Minor, and on that he was correct. Clearly he used the syllabus, which states the holding. That’s not in question. Where you get debunked is that neither the syllabus nor what MMaschin cited where the Court described the holding includes the dicta about “natural born”.
edge919 wrote: “Fuller is also the guy who dissented in Wong Kim Ark”.
Where Fuller wrote that he “cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”, arguing in part:
“I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Why is that reason to dissent? According to your theory, edge919, the majority opinion implies nothing about the eligibility issue, yet Fuller argues against the majority on those grounds. Is it perhaps possible that the Chief Justice understood the implications better than you do?
edge919 wrote: “[Fuller] cited Vattel in defining natural-born citizen.”
True. Fuller wrote:
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
In that same Dissent he also wrote:
“In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government.”
Fuller’s own judgement *disagrees* with what he cited to Vattel. Fuller’s dissent and the Court’s majority opinion both disagreed with Vattel, though in different directions. What’s more instructive is that the opinions are not written at the third-grade level. Citation, even quotation, does not imply agreement.
Interpreting precedents and tracking which control is a challenging task. I’ve seen no one posting here who is really competent at it, including myself. Fortunately our legislature has the worlds best library with an excellent research staff. Jack Maskell actually has the expertise that so many birthers pretend.
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.