Posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:43 AM PST by Steven Tyler
As Judge Bork said, although this good-faith effort may not always produce precision, the results are probably better and more accurate than any other. Most the results are certainly better than today's "positive law" approach by the "theorists of liberal constitutional revisionism" as Bork calls them.
Because the Constitution defines presidential eligibility as "Natural Born"....not simply "Native Born". Hence.....we realize that to the framers two separate conditions of birth citizenship existed.... and the understanding of the term, "Natural Born" in 1787 meant.....born on the soil of citizen parents (plural).
At the beginning of the nation there existed no "Natural Born Citizens" because there had been no Citizen Parents until the signing of the document. But, the framers did not want themselves excluded from the presidency so they included the grandfather clause (or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution). This then.... allowed anyone born a citizen (on the soil but with non citizen parents) to temporarily be eligible to run for the office. But after these folks passed on.... the Constitution would only allow folks to run that had been born on the soil....and also to citizen parents (plural).
"Naturalized Citizens" (given citizenship by law) were never eligible from the get go. Only "Citizens" (born on the soil) and "Natural Born Citizens" (both soil and parentage) were ever considered eligible.....and after the "Citizens" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution all died off.....then only "Natural Born Citizens" were to be eligible for the presidency from that time forward.
Please forgive me for the redundancy but this apparently is a difficult concept for some....thinking that simply "Born on the soil" means "Natural Born". Not if your parents are not citizens themselves....and the wording in [Article II; Section I] proves it.
Many folks will say that the term "Natural Born" is ambiguous because the Constitution does not define it. So what? They didn't have to define it because everyone knew (at the time) exactly what the term meant. This would be similar to folks 200 years from now attempting to determine what we meant by the term "Super Bowl".
We don't have to say "Super Bowl Football Game" (further defining the term) because everyone already knows that the "Super Bowl" is football! We also know that the "World Series" is baseball......but for folks a couple of hundred years from now, reading about it.....may not know without a little detective work.
There are ample sources from the 18th century (and the 19th) that indicate "Natural Born" means....born on the soil to citizen parents. So a child born overseas is eliminated from seeking the presidency according to the Constitution. The current occupant may have been born here (on the soil) but he is disqualified for another reason.....that of parentage.
His father was a British subject and according to British law.....so would be.....Barack Jr. Therefore, if he were born on the soil (and not in Kenya) he would still be ineligible because of his dual citizenship.
But.....since precedent has now been set.....there are some folks who are not "Natural Born" in the strictest sense that would be excellent presidents of this country. If one of these folks happens to run..... the Republican party is sure to be attacked by the "dummies" for it.....so they had better be prepared to say, "So what? Your man had dual citizenship....and was disqualified from the beginning!"
If the Republicans nominate one of these folks who are not natural born they need to ignore this phony birth issue (regarding Obama) and concentrate on the fact that Barack Obama had dual citizenship because of his parentage....and was ineligible for that reason. The precedent has now been set.....so the Democrats can stuff it!
Next time I need some guidance on the Constitution I'll be sure to check in with the Hoosiers! LOL
The Founders made provisions to alter their thinking on any issue via the constitutional amendment process. The 14th Amendment establishes two forms of citizenship: born and naturalized. Since 1865, that is the law of the land.
Here’s a constitutional analogy:
One of the most important structural issues of governance to the Founders was that the House of Representatives be popularly elected but that the Senate be indirectly elected by state legislatures: Article I, Section 3.
As the authors of the Federalist Papers explained, election by state legislatures “is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems” (Federalist No. 62).
Over the years since ratification, indirect election of senators fell out of favor and in 1913, the Constitution was amended by the 17th Amendment to provide for direct, popular election of Senators. The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.”
It is the 14th Amendment which provides for two and only two forms of citizenship: born and naturalized. There is no distinction in any state’s law or in federal law between a natural born citizen and a Citizen of the United States at birth. This is established as precedent in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
In 2009, regarding the status of Barack Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
No other court has ruled otherwise or reversed the Ankeny ruling.
No.
This is correct.
Birthers can scream from the rooftops all they want. Nobody's buying their made-up definition of NBC that requires both parents to be U.S. citizens.
There were eligibility challenges to Obama in 2008 and again in 2012 in practically every state in the union ( all told, 226 legal challenges to his eligibility). When you count the 3, 5 and 7 judge panels of state appeals courts and state Supreme Courts plus U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings and the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, more than 500 judges and justices have actually ruled on Obama’s status.
If you don’t appreciate those Hoosiers, here’s New Jersey:
“No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Or how about Arizona?
“Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Should we try Georgia?
“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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Good grief. Are there still people around who don't know the real reason his eligibility was never called to question or received a negative ruling against him....... by any court?
Retread, it won’t be long to wait until Sheriff Arpaio’s next news conference that lowers the boom on you clownish trolls. This Spring.
Ok then, another news conference.
I’m certain that everyone is waiting patiently for the big news out of Maricopa County, just like we all have for the last three years; ever since a Surprise, Arizona Tea Party member named Brian Reilly went to Sheriff Arpaio and asked him to take on the job of investigating Obama’s credentials.
Patience is indeed a virtue and hope does “spring” eternal!
Yes, I think there are still some of those people. But there are obviously a whole lot more people who just don’t care.
The state of Hawaii stands by both the original long form birth certificate and the whitehouse.gov scanned image of the PDF and to date, no one has filed a criminal complaint for forgery, identity theft, election fraud or document tampering.
Under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, whatever Hawaii says is a legitimate and authentic birth record of that state will be (and has been) accepted in every other state.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, RECORDS, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” —Article IV, Section 1.
Jameieeee, "faith and credit" doesn't work and is null and void for fraud. Governments do lie and cover up.
Absolute "Balderdash!" Where do you people dream these things up?
The 14th amendment to the Constitution never addressed the subject of Presidential eligibility and it does not make one born in the United States a "Natural Born Citizen". It only makes them a "Citizen"!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2
The decision in the case of Wong Kim Ark reads as follows: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." Justice Horace Gray Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
What he has said is this. A native born citizen and a natural born citizen share the same distinction of being born of the soil ("Jus Soli"). But they do not share the same distinction of being born of citizen parents (Jus Sanguinis"). In order to be considered a "Natural Born Citizen" you must have both. Wong Kim Ark had one.....being born of the soil to alien parents.
The same principal alluded to by Chief Justice Gray is "Jus Soli" (of the soil).....not "Jus Sanguinis" (of the blood). There are two principals here.......count 'em!
Good Grief! Here is the last paragraph of the decision. Google it if you wish to read the rest:
The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal.
Now.....take a magnifying glass and see if you can find the words "Natural Born" here.
-PJ
Thanks.
So we have Natural born, as described by Founders, such as John Jay.
Then you say the 14th provides born and naturalized.
So we have three. Very good.
You fail to answer the question.
I take it that question is too uncomfortable. Answering it would prove me right.
No? Your serious? Never play Poker?
Maybe you grew up in Indonesia while I grew up in a suburb of NY.
I’ll help you understand poker and the word Natural.
When get cards from the dealer, it’s called a “hand”.
One of the hands of a player might have. Pair of sevens.
There might be wild cards, such as the number two.
So a second player may hold a pair of “Sevens”,
One of the cards actually the wild two.
So we can correlate this to citizenship at birth.
Is the two and seven really a pair of twos? Not really. We simply assign the value.
It’s that way with a child born of two citizenship. That is the hand he his dealt. He needs to decide. Is he a seven, a two, a pair of sevens. He decides. He has that wild card.He might be Kenyan, he might be American, he might be both. He decides.
The other players hand is very simple he has a pair of sevens. No twos in his hand. Its what life dealt him.
The second plays hand, in poker, is called a natural hand. There are no decisions to be made. It is what it is. Like me.I was born to two americans.the hand I was dealt gave me no choice. I am a natural born american.
Mr. Obama was dealt a hand that required decisions. He has said so.He did not get a natural hand. He got the wild card, the parent from a foreign country, that hand that allows foreign influence.
No matter what you say, you will never make Obama a natural born citizen. Its impossible. He was born with Kenya birthright to citizenship in Kenya. That ain’t a natural hand. Its a dual citizen, not a natural.
I grew up in Westchester County, N.Y. I don’t play poker but I enjoy watching the World Series of Poker on ESPN. As for me, I played football in high school and in college.
Now if you could only convince any judge in America or any of 535 members of Congress, all of whom voted to certify Obama’s electors, twice, of the relevance of your poker/dual citizenship analogy, you’d be cooking with gas!
If your ego needs the reinforcement of being right, you go right ahead and be right. I’m happy to be able to provide that reinforcement for you.
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.