Posted on 01/09/2016 9:36:28 PM PST by jdirt
For the last few days various outlets have been bringing up the eligibility issue of the presidency. And all of them have been so dishonest. Some have stated that it needs to be litigated, some have stated that citizenship and natural born citizen is the same thing, some have stated that only one parent is required when born abroad, still another purported that our first 7 presidents weren't born here so its ok, totally ignoring the grandfather clause, Glenn Beck.
It kinda po's me when people say it should be litigated when anyone with an ounce of integrity should know that it was tried a gadzillion times.
First they lacked standing, then it was the wrong jurisdiction, then it was the wrong defendants, Then the case wasn't ripe, then the candidate became president and so it was moot, the courts said it was a political question, and the congress said it was a question for the courts, as a finishing touch the congressional research dept. came up with i think 3 different lying butt papers on the issue to help congressman explain it to their constituents.
when all else failed the people begged their congressman to not certify the election. that didn't work either. Moral of the story, the people have no recourse what so ever when the elite decide to allow a person ineligible to run for president.
So here is the obvious thing I need to state so that you know what this thing is leading to so there is no misunderstanding:
A person born in this country to 2 non-citizens (like Chinese for example) who grows up in a communist country to the age of 21, then comes to the United States and spends the next 14 years here will be eligible to be president at the age of 35. This will be the ultimate ineligible candidate. And there won't be a thing your grandkids will be able to do about it. Now if someone wants to argue that this is a natural born citizen, you get what you deserve.
Little by little they have been warping the definition of NBC to meet their desires. And yes, a definition absolutely can be inferred by contemporaneous documents. Intellectual dishonesty is the worst kind, if thats possible.
It kinda po's me when people say it should be litigated when anyone with an ounce of integrity should know that it was tried a gadzillion times.
First they lacked standing, then it was the wrong jurisdiction, then it was the wrong defendants, Then the case wasn't ripe, then the candidate became president and so it was moot, the courts said it was a political question, and the congress said it was a question for the courts, as a finishing touch the congressional research dept. came up with i think 3 different lying butt papers on the issue to help congressman explain it to their constituents.
when all else failed the people begged their congressman to not certify the election. that didn't work either. Moral of the story, the people have no recourse what so ever when the elite decide to allow a person ineligible to run for president.
So here is the obvious thing I need to state so that you know what this thing is leading to so there is no misunderstanding:
A person born in this country to 2 non-citizens (like Chinese for example) who grows up in a communist country to the age of 21, then comes to the United States and spends the next 14 years here will be eligible to be president at the age of 35. This will be the ultimate ineligible candidate. And there won't be a thing your grandkids will be able to do about it. Now if someone wants to argue that this is a natural born citizen, you get what you deserve.
Little by little they have been warping the definition of NBC to meet their desires. And yes, a definition absolutely can be inferred by contemporaneous documents. Intellectual dishonesty is the worst kind, if thats possible.
I was convinced of the ineligibility of Obama from the get-go. I'm convinced of the ineligibility of Cruz today.
What I am not convinced of is that the Republicans will be able to get away with this simply because the Democrats did. That hasn't worked in many cases where the Republican gets punished and the Democrat doesn't.
The reality is that Republicans have to conduct themselves in ways that the Democrats don't. It isn't fair.
But the alternative of behaving like Democrats in order to win won't have the results that some people want. It will simply turn us into Democrats.
Now I get it. This is a vanity thread.
There is no need to wait for our grandkids.
Almost anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen of the US, under current law. That is the case for Marco Rubio, for example, neither of whose parents were US citizens when he was born. Almost nobody disputes that he is a natural born citizen. If you don't like it, change the law.
When the elites think it will benefit them to pull the Natural Born Citizenship card and put Senator Ted Cruz through litigation, they will do it. If it does not benefit them, they will stonewall, they will deceive, they will pull up irrelevant documents and shop for the right judge to throw it out of court. They will, for their own benefit, litigate Ted Cruz’s citizen status until he is broke, like they tried to do with Sarah Palin.
Constitutional Meaning Sourcery 1/31/12 has your Answer ( sorry no cut and paste here)
Thank you.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen. While born here, he was not born of two American citizens.
“Almost anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen of the US, under current law.”
So you’re saying if a pair of illegal immigrants have a kid on US soil, he would be a natural born citizen?
I don’t think so.
sorry I didn’t know how to post a vanity. please let me know.
The law doesn’t need to be changed, it needs to be followed. The only other solution is to clarify the Constitution with a law but even that will never happen. The reality is as I stated and people need to know whats coming. I just felt compelled to spell it out.
You think Obama was bad, wait until there is a card carrying communist in the white house. But hey, he/she will be our first Asian president, right?
NBC was never, ever a certain protection against bad or dishonest or unpatriotic people running for the Presidency. Consider Hillary Clinton...
But it does have a pretty clear legal meaning, based on original intent.
Natural Born refers to being born on US soil of two citizen parents. Rubio is a citizen but not “natural born”. Obama MAY fit this category, Cruz wasn’t even born here.
The founders wanted to avoid excatly what we got in Obama - a leader who only pretends to be loyal. Obamatrade is positioned to destroy our sovereignty. This is what we get for figuring it’s ok to let the first black POTUS evade the Constitution.
Very well said.
There have been issues or questions with McCain, Romney, Obama, Cruz, and Rubio. I think it just shows that with the massive immigration we’ve had in the last 50 years, it is becoming harder to find a candidate who was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens. This issue is going to keep coming up, and will get worse.
I don't think so.
My friend, where have you been? This happens every single day in the US. Illegals have kids in US hospitals, the hospital gets paid by Medicaid, the parents get a fancy birth certificate for the child, who is now eligible for all welfare benefits.
Worse.
Wait till we get a kid from two gay men who borrowed an egg inseminated it in a tube, implanted it in a transsexual from Botswanaland and it grew to be 35.
Is THAT “natural”?
There is nothing in US law to support this assertion. That is why lawsuits alleging this always get tossed. There are only two types of US citizens, natural born and naturalized. This assertion that there are additional types, like "Citizen at Birth" has no support.
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
But they aren’t natural born citizens, eligible to serve as President.
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.