Check out article, # 9 , -- esp # 14 ,
and # 15 .
Posted on 04/10/2016 4:01:46 PM PDT by JayGalt
Today I discovered that the reason I could not find a section of the Nationalization Statues is because the section had been scrubbed. This is not an accident. The section removed had confirmed that the interpretation of the State Department based on the Constitution and relevant case law was that Naturalization did not convey natural born status for Constitutional purposes.
The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT (CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016) is being scrubbed...
The Original Document “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency.” (Still live at Wikipedia)
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a “natural-born citizen”.
According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”[33]
The Current Document
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Accordingly, U.S. citizens who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) are not considered “naturalized” citizens under either act.
You are quite right and my intent was for you to say so. I’m sure that you were deliberate with your post and I suspect that you were trying to deceive readers who are not familiar with the arguments. I think that the Birther argument is nonsense and ought to be treated as such.
Do tell us, Strac6.
bookmarking
Are you loopy. I said it in the topic post, you accomplished nothing except to look like a person with an agenda that is overwhelming your ability to process information.
Playing the birther card is liking putting a sign on your head, with the words “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up”. As American Citizens we should have a working knowledge of the constitution and a passion for it because it is what defines our country. The provisions of the Constitution matter and should be defended.
it is no “comfort to me” to see so much time. energy and opportunity wasted on a man who will be judicially crucified by the democrat party - if he manages to advance himself
bkmk
Check out article, # 9 , -- esp # 14 ,
and # 15 .
So all of these Congressmen must have been the “Original Birthers?”
You claim a foreign born president meets the NBC requirement.
In 2000, Before the House Judiciary Committee H.J. Res 88 was proposed to amend the Constitution for foreign born citizens. IT FAILED!
Obviously everyone in our government has always known exactly what a natural born citizen means and they have not amended the Constitution.
From the Congressional Record:
2000 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.J.Res. 88
JULY 24, 2000 Serial No. 108 Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
MAXINE WATERS, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York
CATHLEEN CLEAVER, Chief Counsel
BRADLEY S. CLANTON, Counsel
JONATHAN A. VOGEL, Counsel
PAUL B. TAYLOR, Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
July 24, 2000
TEXT OF BILL
H.J.Res. 88
OPENING STATEMENT
Canady, Hon. Charles T., a Representative in Congress From the State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution
WITNESSES
Delgado, Raimundo, teacher, Ashland Middle School, Ashland, MA
McDonald, Forrest, historian and professor of history, University of Alabama
Vazsonyi, Balint, director, Center for the American Founding
Yinger, John M., professor of economics and public administration, Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Delgado, Raimundo, teacher, Ashland Middle School, Ashland, MA: Prepared statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
McDonald, Forrest, historian and professor of history, University of Alabama: Prepared statement
Vazsonyi, Balint, director, Center for the American Founding: Prepared statement
Yinger, John M., professor of economics and public administration, Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University: Prepared statement
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT
MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:45 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles T. Canady [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Charles T. Canady, Spencer Bachus, Bob Barr, Melvin L. Watt and Barney Frank.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Staff present: Cathleen Cleaver, chief counsel; Jonathan A. Vogel, counsel; Paul B. Taylor, counsel; Susana Gutierrez, clerk; and Anthony Foxx, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CANADY
Mr. CANADY. The subcommittee will be in order. The subcommittee meets now to conduct a hearing on H.J.Res. 88, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the office of the President a person who has been the United States citizen for 20 years. This amendment, which was introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Frank would change the portion of the Presidential qualifications clause in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution that limits eligibility for the Presidency of the United States to natural-born citizens.
[H.J.Res. 88 follows:]
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. J. RES. 88
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘’Article —
‘’A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.’’
Mr. CANADY. As we will hear in today’s testimony, the drafters of the Constitution left little written record of the purpose of the natural-born citizen requirement. Historians trace the origin of the phrase to a letter written by John Jay to George Washington during the Convention’s deliberations in 1787. Jay, who would become an author the Federalist Papers and would later be appointed the first Chief Justice of the United States, recommended that the drafters provide, and I quote, a strong check, closed quote, against the admission of foreigners into the Government and expressly require that the Commander in Chief be a natural-born citizen.
Some sources suggest that Jay was responding to a rumor that the Convention was secretly designing a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign monarch, but Jay’s warning can also be seen simply as a reflection of the widely held fear of foreign influence in this new country’s elections and of a general distrust of executive power at that time.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many view these considerations as equally relevant today. The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.
Supporters of the measure, however, argue that the limitation is no longer warranted. They assert that distinguishing natural-born from naturalized citizens has no relevance in determining who might be subject to actual foreign influence. Unlike natural-born citizens, naturalized citizens have made an express commitment to embrace this Nation’s principles. The many naturalized citizens have indeed served this country with great honor and distinction.
Moreover, supporters of the amendment regard eligibility for the Presidency as a civil right with strong symbolic importance and assert that the principle of equality is not served unless every citizen has the opportunity to reach the Nation’s highest office.
I want to thank the witnesses for being with us here to discuss this matter. I look forward to their testimony.
Now I will recognize the author of this proposed Constitutional amendment Mr. Frank.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm
The law is
this. Cruz is ineligible as hell. There is no doubt and no question. He needs to withdraw to save the party. Otherwise he will be obliterated at the convention because he can’t even be nominated. How is that for “the law”?
Bookmarked. BTTT.
Absolutely, you are totally correct. The law, U.S. Code 1401 and following say the exact opposite, but your legal reasoning is so persuasive that I have forwarded it to Ted Cruz, who pays me 10 hours per day of my per-retirement $750 hourly fee to try to screw up Conservatives, and he assures my, by secret coded message that, because of your incredible legal reasoning, he will drop out at 10:17 AM, CDT tomorrow,
Trust me.....
Duck and cover. You are in for a falling sky.
I see that you have been a member of Free Republic for less than a month and have been very busy since joining us, mostly attacking Mr. Cruz.
I see that you are dumb-founded by the fact that Cruz is an ineligible fraud.
You respond by attacking me and ignoring the contents. So Funny -therefore the 2000 House Judiciary committee were all anti-Cruzers too.
And I have just demonstrated that Congress knows that foreign citizens are excluded from the presidency. That is how it’s always been.
In 2000, Before the House Judiciary Committee H.J. Res 88 was proposed to amend the Constitution for foreign born citizens. IT FAILED!
Obviously everyone in our government has always known exactly what a natural born citizen means and they have not amended the Constitution.
2000 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT
Looks like I shall start a thread with this next time I’m bored.
I’ll let you speak for yourself, you are doing quite well.
Bkmd
Actually Beautiful_Gracious_Skies is very useful by posting actual information that is important. Contrary to centurion, who for years has posted weird drivel, I especially remember his support of 0bunghole’s elibility and pooh poohed his forged birth cert and lack of any other documentation.
I’ve been using FAM for quotations of the administrative manual for some decades. I had an extract on paper in the 80s, but I cannot find that paper now. Someone may be able to find one of my quoted extracts of the FAM7 in 2009, but I don’t think it will do much good because it was already changed shortly after October 2007. I had been quoting other extracts of FAM7 on USENET, but those don’t seem to show up in the Internet Archive. I’m hoping I may be able to retrieve those posts someday from the hard drive of one of the defunct computers when I have time for the search someday. It would probably be easier and better if someone with convenient access to the National Archives attempt to retrieve hard copies from there.
Actually, your memory is not quite right. My objections to the forged birth certificate and the extraordinary effort by the Obama people to destroy evidence of his early life was that the Birthers jumped to the wrong conclusion. While the Birther movement made fools of themselves and the Conservative Movement, Obama got away with the real fraud and conspiracy.
Obama was born in Hawaii to a U.S. Citizen mother. He was eligible for the Presidency, at least initially. What happened later is the important piece. After he was adopted by Soetoro, he became an Indonesian citizen. But since a NBC cannot be expatriated without his consent, he could recover his NBC status once he turned 18. Of course, he didn’t do that, because he came up with a scheme to use foreign student status to get into elite colleges. Had that story been made public, he would have never gotten the nomination, much less won the Presidency. The Birther crowd were very useful for Obama, they helped keep the real secret away from the public, although many Freepers had figured out what was really going on.
Now, the Birthers are trying to recover from their original screw up, they are outdoing themselves this time around. You are not interested in information, you are ignoring everything except the tired old Birther dogma.
My memory told me you were an anti-”birther”. FOr some reason your omniscience “knows” that the info on the forged birth. cert is accurate!
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.