In the official statement below, I'm not seeing that claim made. Why does Baldwin make a false statement to premise his article?
Posted on 12/10/2008 11:13:26 AM PST by limitedgovernment67
Posted at Chuck Baldwin Live, written by Chuck Baldwin. He correctly points out the hypocrisy of most Republicans.
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.
Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship.
Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.
For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some...
(Excerpt) Read more at policyinaction.com ...
And that is a claim unsupported by any writings of the founders that I am aware of. And even if it had been their intent, nothing in the Constitution lays out three different classes of citizenship. Nor does anything in law define three classes. The idea that there are different degrees of citizenship for people born here would have never been agreed to by men like Madison or Washington.
I happen to think the natural-born citizen restriction is a good thing, and would like to see us go back to the original intent.
The left says the original intent (both parents citizens AND born on US soil) is xenophobic and unreasonable.
I worry about the example of the child of illegal immigrants I gave earlier. Born in New Mexico, but both parents in US illegaly. That child WILL be running for president in 20-30 years (if not sooner.) Can anyone doubt that child would have divided loyalties between the US and Mexico?
We’ve already seen Obama become deeply involved in Kenyan politics (because of his father’s Kenyan citizenship, Obama was also a Kenyan citizen at birth.) If a crisis arises that requires Obama to choose between the good of the US and Kenya, what will he do?
I don’t believe “loyalty to Kenya” is the problem as much as “loyalty to Marx” is, with 0bama at least.
My big beef, however, is with the left and their worldview that any pre-existing contracts, laws, restrictions, Constitutional requirements, etc, are to be discarded if they get in the way of their present-day goals.
No, it was not.
Is Guam part of the United States? What about the U.S. Virgin Islands; are they part of the United States?
Yes, and citizenship status for people born there are the same as people born in the U.S. If a person is born in the U.S. then they are a natural born U.S. citizen, period, except for the few exceptions defined by law. All persons born in Puerto Rico enjoy the same status. Same with the Virgin Islands and Guam. But in the Canal Zone, only those born with at least one U.S. citizen parent qualified as natural born U.S. citizen.
Now, can a person born in Guam or Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands become president? The answer is, most likely yes. Their citizenship is a result of their birth. Can someone born in the Canal Zone be president? Yes, if at least one of their parents was a U.S. citizen.
“McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens who had lived in the states for some period prior to his birth. The geographic location of his birth was irrelevant.”
Is there a directive or policy in place which outlines your conclusion? What I presented is a matter of current Dept of State policy. This current policy does not seem to agree with your assumption. Can you link me to the directive which includes your statement? I would like to learn more about this so it is clear.
For example, if McCain’s mom was Panamanian, where only McCain’s father was a citizen, would McCain still be considered a natural born citizen although he was born in Panama?
So far, the only policy I have read regarding this is what I presented from the Dept of State. My interest was peeked when Baldwin suggested that to the strict Constitutional constructionist, McCain was ineligible to be POTUS. If the current policy of the Dept of State is based upon Constitutional principle, then it does seem McCain may have been technically Constitutionally ineligible.
To be clear, I am not trying to argue this issue one way or another. I am sincerely trying to learn more about this issue.
Yes, it's called Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III Part I > § 1401:"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
For example, if McCain’s mom was Panamanian, where only McCain’s father was a citizen, would McCain still be considered a natural born citizen although he was born in Panama?
Yes, per § 1403.
In the official statement below, I'm not seeing that claim made. Why does Baldwin make a false statement to premise his article?
Chuck Baldwin is just another version of the left.
Baldwin wants American troops out of the war.
Baldwin is a 9/11 Truther, believes our gov. was behind 9/11.
He also states Lincoln was one of the worst presidents.
Baldwin is a Narcissist, a male who is afraid to be a man and hides behind the anti war left.
Thanks. I just figured out all this legalese mumbo jumbo is written to keep we serfs in a state of confusion. And now I have a migraine having tried to sift thru all this crap. It’s no wonder the wheels of justice turn so slowly. For every law-policy on the books there is another similar law-policy written which seems to contradict the original law-policy.
My one conclusion is this leaves little doubt strict adherence to the Constitution is critical. Especially since there are literally millions of BS rules-laws-policy written which seem to directly, or indirectly, subvert it’s original intent. So many subversions on record that the entire process seems non sequitur. :)
Two questions. What case or what law establishes that the Canal Zone was not U. S. soil in the same manner that the U.S. Virgin Islands are?
Second: Since both of John McCain’s parents were clearly adult U.S. Citizens who had resided as such all their lives, why was there or is there any question about John McCain being a natural born U. S. Citizen?
If you're an adherent to Original Intent, here's some information for you:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
THE LAW OF NATIONS
Emmerich de Vattel
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
[snip - § 213/§ 214]
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
-----
If BO trying to fraudulently pass himself off as natural born when he is not ISN'T a crime against this nation, I don't know what is.
Among other things, Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III Part I > § 1403. It clearly establishes different criteria for citizenship than are defined is § 1402 for Puerto Rico or § 1406 for the Virgin Islands or § 1407 for Guam. In those three sections, citizenship is grante at birth to those born in the territories. In § 1403, citizen is granted at birth only if one parent is a U.S. citizen.
Second: Since both of John McCain’s parents were clearly adult U.S. Citizens who had resided as such all their lives, why was there or is there any question about John McCain being a natural born U. S. Citizen?
Because some people like Donofrio or Baldwin define natural born U.S. citizen only as one born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. I don't think their arguements are valid.
According to that McCain is trying to fraudulently pass himself off as natural born, too.
McCain's father was citizen, Obama's was not.
Thank you for the U.S. Code reference. I guess I had been told about what it says but had not looked it up back when we were dealing with the Canal issue.
But, as you say, the argument against McCain makes no sense.
Still, the Canal Zone was U.S. territory and I am sure that the statute would not necessarily be the final authority for SCOTUS and it could conceivably define the Zone, prior to our foolishly giving it away, as U.S. territory meeting the Constitutional requirement although I doubt if the issue will ever come before the court.
I'm assuming that you were the one who bolded "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Didn't you read it first, particularly the 'born in the country' part? McCain wasn't born in the U.S. By your definition he is not a natural born citizen.
I've told you before NS, your screen name is apt, for your posts are just that - non sequiturs.
Go away, woman. My original post was not addressed to you, nor do I desire to waste further time with someone who engages in such liberalized [and laughable] 'debate' tactics such as you do.
Good day.
Baldwin is a self-important hypocrite.
Baldwin's? Yeah, why?
I've told you before NS, your screen name is apt, for your posts are just that - non sequiturs.
And your wacked out legal theories haven't changed either.
Go away, woman.
Wrong gender, sir.
My original post was not addressed to you, nor do I desire to waste further time with someone who engages in such liberalized [and laughable] 'debate' tactics such as you do.
When you post nonsense expect to be challenged on it.
Stand corrected.
Regards
SZ
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.