Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
I previously have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and usage histories for natural-born and native born in some long thread about the question of Obama's Constitutional eligiblity to assume the office of President. But that thread was eventually deleted, and I think these definitions should be available for discussion here.
Lawyers use the OED because it is sometimes the only way to examine what words meant at the time they were used to craft legislation. So here are the entries for these phrases:
Of note to me is that at least some of the usages of native-born and particularly the ones whose dates bracket the drafting of the Constitution suggest that this term has as much to do with whom one is born to as to where one is born. I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.
Whatever natural-born means, it means something. That everyone would turn their heads and pretend otherwise will not be good for the rule of law in this country.
ML/NJ
“every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.”
Tell me why this matters. Everyone I’ve seen use the Wong Kim Ark case to defend the idea that children born on U.S. soil are natural-born citizens recognizes that Wong’s parents were aliens. What are you getting at by saying “at the time his parents could not become citizens”? What is the difference between his parents simply not being citizens and his parents not being able to become citizens?
To put it in a more basic terms here. Let’s say I suspect that my co-worker is an illegal immigrant. So I go sue my employer and him both to get them prove his legal status because they are violating immigration law, or take it to a prosecutor(of course I would have no standing, same as in these cases, and neither would the prosecutor). That is a backwards case. They are under no obligation to prove my allegation false. Once I have definitive evidence of his illegal status then I can have a case.
All of this right now is so far beyond silliness it is embarrassing.
"What's all this hubbub about only natural born citizens can become President of the United States. Citizens born by c-section are just as capable of being President too!"
Really? I was not aware that any of them had been labeled frivilous. Please site a source for that claim.
It was either Berg or Donofrio. Actually I think both of them were labeled as without standing. Which means frivilous.
The bottom line is you have to have evidence of the claim you are making first. Right now none of the cases have any evidence of their claim.
They are making the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Don’t you think that if there was any merit here that a prominant conservative or conservative group would be all over this? Rush, Hannity, Levin, Heritage? They all have great legal minds and resources at their disposal out the wazoo.
Not the point of this thread.
We stopped being a Constitutional Republic when we started having direct elections for President and Senators.
Prove himself innocent???? No one is accusing him of a CRIME! NO ONE!
There is NOTHING criminal or not criminal about the case.
We have a GAME here with a rule book which is commonly known as the Constitution. Where's the umpire? No one in any branch of government wants to step up, be the man in striped suit, who will wave his arms, and say, “YOU'RE OUT!!!” or “HOME RUN! !”
Every other president has presented evidence that they are natural born citizens. ARMIES and ARMIES of witnesses could have stepped forward and testified that the only place the president could have been born was their home town.
But...Obama hasn't done that and there is no umpire to force him to do it. It has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with innocence or guilt!!!
Now it could be, that if Obama is not a natural born citizen he would guilty of defrauding millions from innocent people....but that's simple! All he would need to do it withdraw from the GAME!
I bet the red states soon enact firm laws about proving citizenship ( and any other surrounding issues) before a name is placed on the ballot.
Obama will get through this time, but NOT in the next election! I predict that he will have a health problem and needs more time with his family.
I said equivalant. That is what the faulty approach all of these cases have taken but on a civil level. They are frivolous. None of them will ever succeed.
It matters for one simple reason.......jurisdiction.
Legal immigrants even those that are not allowed to become citizens like the Chinese at that time, are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. They accepted the fact that they could not become American citizens, they were resident aliens and our laws allowed them to work here.
The point I have been making is that in order for the 14th amendment to apply to those wishing to be US citizens and natural born ones at that, both of their parents should be subject to not only the laws of our country but also to the jurisdiction as well, meaning that they cannot be here on any special visa diplomatic student or tourist where they have no intention on becoming United States Citizens or they cannot be here illegally to claim citizenship for their children born here when they refused to enter this country through our immigration processes.
Applying for legal immigration is the means of submitting to the jurisdiction of our government and it’s laws, those that do and have children here, then their children should be natural born citizens.
So how does this apply to Obama, his father chose not to immigrate to this country and had no intentions of becoming a US citizen, and since he arrived here on a student visa he was granted a limited immunity from our jurisdiction by treaty. I normally use the example that he did not have to pay income tax, but 1961 his limited immunity also protected him from being drafted into the Armed Forces as I am sure young men that were legal immigrants of the proper age were subject to.
As for his mother, her age was a factor especially since she was married to a Foreign National who was not going to apply for US citizenship, because she was not old enough to exercise her full citizenship rights under the law. Their divorce decree may have awarded her custody of her son but it certainly did not decide his citizenship.
We need to see a case where the child of a minor(US citizen) married to a Foreign National here on a Visa (diplomatic, student or Tourist)sued for the right to be considered Natural born, even if they were born outside the United States.
Without standing does not mean frivolous, it means that he (Burg) has no legal right to initiate a lawsuit, meaning he is not affected by the action he finds grievous enough to sue for.
It is the same as saying you slipped and fell in a Wal Mart and I sued Wal Mart for damages I say I incurred from your fall.
I say that as an officer of the court sworn under a legal oath of office in the State of Pennsylvania, Phillip Berg is legally bound for his life to defend the constitution, that is all the standing he needs to file this suit.
I believe you.
But...I predict Obama will not be able to get through the next presidential election. ( If he allows elections.)
I browse through every thread about Obamas eligibility, birth certifigate or natural born and compared to other more blase threads I can realistically say I have never seen so many people making roundabout off the wall time wasting comments than on these threads, all they do is post like a serpent eating its tail.
Same questions over and over, they cannot understand any facts no matter how detailed they are, to them the world is flat and any non believer is a heretic.
They must have cue cards with pre planned responses to tie up as many people as they can.
People why fall for it? There are winners and there is losers, they are losers, they will not accept it, we accept the facts because we were diligent enough to individually examine them, the losers rely on facts that are dished out like a daily plate of dog food.
I rarely will post on any of these threads, I won’t waste my time arguing with leftist trolls, if a person wants to creatively argue I suggest getting a username on DU and argue on their own turf, here at FR we are going to be busy organizing a new America.
Patriotic dissent is approved, just don’t get caught.
There you go with more falsehoods. In the Donofrio case the stay against the Sec State of CT was denied but the writ for Certiori was put in the pending categorization which means it is still active and yet to be decided. You are not uniformed on this so you're just a liar.
Maybe, but not very well. Citizen and subject are synonyms with the difference having to due with the form of government under which one lives. (Republic or monarchy, respectively)
Suggesting that the usage examples given by the OED are random just demonstrates your ignorance of what the OED is. Since I'm guessing that you do not own one, I suggest that the next time you are in a library you pick up volume one and read the introduction which contains some philosophy and history of the work (in the 2nd edition, at least, which is the one that I own).
It certainly is true that some usages of natural-born do not imply anything about parents. Language evolves over time, and the way we use a term may be different today from what it was 50 or 200 or 500 years ago. (liberal is a particularly spectacular example of a word whose meaning has change to nearly the opposite of what it was 100 years ago.) What is important, in law, is to understand the words and terms in the same manner as they were used when a law was drafted.
The 14th amendment is completely silent about what makes one a natural-born citizen as opposed to some other citizen outside the class of natural-born citizens. Pretending otherwise is absurd.
ML/NJ
I would certainly agree with you that the plural used in the OED example is ambiguous though some would argue that other sources make it clear that it is the father who is the one who conveys the citizenship.
It might surprise you, but I would be satisfied if the Supreme Court ruled that they are satisfied by evidence Obama produces that he was born to a US mother and that therefore he is a natural-born citizen under the meaning of the Constitution. I think it would be wrong, but I would be satisfied. I do not think it would be a good thing for this country if the issue is just ignored.
ML/NJ
Well, gee. That's very reassuring. You have checked it out. WTFRU?
You also have no evidence that I wasn't born in Hawaii.
ML/NJ
There is no evidence that he was born in Hawaii,
Fixed
Common knowledge as far as I can tell.
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.