Posted on 02/10/2009 7:27:57 AM PST by BP2
“You mean stuff like claims he was born in Kenya, that his certificate’s a fake, etc.? I agree. There is no reason to believe something on the Internet is factual. “
We seem to be on different sides of the BC issue, but we do agree on this. Sometimes I think the internet is the grownup version of “telephone” - something gets repeated, and repeated, and eventually it’s nothing like the original post.
For instance, people keep throwing around the term “Alinsky tactics”, and it’s clear that have no idea what it means; people are now saying that BO has spent millions defending himself in these cases; people say that his grandmother said he was born in Kenya; people say that he was adopted in Indonesia and gave up his American citizenship, etc.
I believe that all the hyperbole discredits a valid issue - but I don’t think that means it should all be dismissed. I wish people could determine the facts, and provide documentation (paperwork, laws, etc), so it could be settled. I especially wish the people bringing the lawsuits would do this before presenting their cases. So much of these cases is based on hypotheses.
I believe that BO is hiding his original BC, but these “lower-level” issues could conceivably be settled by the public. There must be some way to have another language expert (someone respected in the “translation field) listen to his grandmother’s tape, just as there must be some way to find out if he was truly adopted, and if so, what that would have meant for his citizenship.
Sometimes it feels like so many of the posts just go back and forth between people wanting to find out if BO is eligible, and people wanting to stop the issue. Both sides repeating the same things, again and again. It feels like we’re not moving forward (although, I realize that’s the definition of the mission of a bot).
I wish we could make a list of the hypotheses, and then groups of knowledgable people could search out and examine the evidence (attorneys for the legal stuff, etc). The stronger evidence we have, one way or the other, at the “lower levels”, the more firm can be our hypothesis about his eligibility (the “higher level” issue).
Conness talked a lot about the Chinese community in the West, and just how utterly difficult it was to assimilate them into American society. Conness conceded that they (the Chinese) were far more difficult to assimilate or naturalize and adopt "Western" customs and practices than even Native American indians. Their loyalties to their families and the Chinese community overrode everything else. They maintained their eastern customs, language and practices. He talked about how few of them ever bothered to "naturalize". They were a incredibly tight knit community that was adamant about maintaining there traditions.
Conness even remarked how difficult it was to get them to swear an "oath", in a court of law, like everyone else. He said that it would usually involve the burning of parchment (papers) and incense or, even in some cases, -sacrificing a chicken.
The Chinese community was viewed in the same kind of manner as a Native American tribe.
"Is the child of the CHINESE IMMIGRANT in California a citizen?"
And on that critical point they made their intentions clear in plain English. Senator Conness obviously did not reply to every statement made by his fellow Senators during this debate where a myriad of arguments were being made. Such is the case with every great debate on Capitol Hill.
And Conness personal viewpoint was obviously influenced by the fact that he was himself an immigrant.
Bullsh*t.
They spoke about "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." within the context of the of the 14th Amendment. That Amendment begins the the words, "All persons...".
"All persons..." encompasses foreign nationals/immigrants.
Again,Senator Trumball specifically said,
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Foreign allegiance on the part of immigrants is something that has always been recognized by our laws and lawmakers. That is precisely why every immigrant that becomes a fully naturalized citizen is legally required to renounce all allegiances to their country of origin and its government as part of their Citizenship oath.
WRONG.
Where, in the text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, do the terms, "Indian", "Native American", "indigenous persons","tribe" or even "taxed" appear...? None of those terms appear anywhere in the Citizenship Clause of the Amendment. The clause says, "All persons...".
Trumball was talking about the language of the Citizenship Clause. He read clause verbatim. "All persons..." encompasses immigrants as well as those other groups. And it has to be determined wether they actually fall under the "complete jurisdiction" of the U.S. as defined by the Framers.
At no time does anyone say that a child born to non-citizen parents is someone owing allegiance to anybody else.
No one can determine a newborn's allegiance, one way or another. A child, fresh out of the womb, literally does not have capacity to make those kinds decisions for itself; -a fact fully recognized by the Medical profession as well as the law. Period. A newborn infant is just struggling to absorb all of the new sensory data around it. So it is a moot point. That is why the newborn's status has to be determined through the status of its parents.
And when he speaks of not owing allegiance to anybody else, he is saying it in the context of Indians, who were a completely different class of people than the children of non-citizen parents.
Wrong. The allegiance of immigrants is also something that the law recognizes. That is what our Citizenship Oath is all about; and why it is legally required of immigrants that wish to become citizens.
Your problem is that you insist interpreting this as an "either/or..." situation; as if it were some sort of zero-sum game. If this particular group was not included, then that group had to be included. It is not.
Doolittle wanted that provision regarding Indians in there because the 1866 Civil Rights Act (the current law) had a clause regarding Indians, and he felt that it was wise for the Amendment to also have clause provision regarding Indians.
The 1866 Civil Rights Act read :
"“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
The act excluded (automatic) birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
BTW, they specifically added that exclusion regarding Indians to the statute because any Indian, by virtue of being an indigenous person, can claim they are not subject to any "foreign" power.
The other Senators told him that it (his provision) was unnecessary. Under the 14th Amendment, it had to be determined of all persons born in the U.S. wether they were citizens by birth or not. Either they were subject to the "full and complete jurisdiction" of the U.S., or, they were not. And this had to be ascertained of all groups, not just one or the other.
The citizenship clause has NOTHING to do with the parents, with the exception of those parents who are ambassadors and diplomats.
The ALLEGIANCE is referring to the PERSONS BORN. NOT their parents.
And as soon as you tell me precisely how to ascertain an infant's personal "allegiance", one way or another, at birth, then you are simply blowing smoke. I want to know specific, step by step instructions, OK? So then we can enshrine these provisions into law and have specific legal guidelines for every parent to follow.
You're full of it. Again, a newborn infant has absolutely no capacity to make those kinds of decisions. If you still don't believe me, I suggest you go talk to anyone involved with the Pediatric or Neurological Medicine, -just for starters.
The lawmakers obviously take all of this into account when writing laws regarding the acquisition of citizenship.The parents' status, under the jurisdiction, determines an infant's status at birth.
The citizenship clause has everything to do with the parents of a given child:
"“Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.”That is what the Framers meant by, "born... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".
I hope that the amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.
More horsesh*t from you. They were simply talking about Indians, and you continue to harp on this erroneous claim that if tribal Indians were excluded from the jurisdiction then other groups were automatically included. Their discussion of tribal Indians was simply that, a discussion about one particular group of people. It also had to be ascertained whether other groups within the United States actually fell within the complete jurisdiction of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment poses the question of proper jurisdiction to everyone residing within the United States. This is why it begins with the words, "All persons...".
As Howard said immediately upon the proposal:
Yes, Howard was simply talking about tribal Indians and their allegiances to their tribes.
No. It was specifically added because THE INDIANS THEMSELVES WERE "FOREIGN" POWERS! That's why we dealt with them via TREATIES! This had been the case even throughout the colonial period.
Good grief! Were you not born here? Did you never attend school here or study US history in any way, shape or form?
Hey dumbsh*t, ever heard of the term, "Native American"...? What is a "Native" American...?
Look at that quotation that you posted by Senator Howard. He refers to Indian Tribes as "quasi foreign nations". So although they had been granted complete autonomy over their tribal lands, they really weren't a "foreign" sovereignty by virtue of the fact that they were an indigenous people, living in an indigenous society. This was a unique distinction that the rest of the countries throughout the world could not make. So to avoid any possible games that could be played with semantics, they added that exemption to the statute.
Indian tribes were like "foreign" nations, but in another respect, it could be argued, that they were not. Howard's quote shows that lawmakers realized that there were possible "gray areas" with regards to that issue.
Again, he's referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, which says "All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." So Trumbull here is referring to the PERSONS BORN, NOT their parents.
But simply being born here does not automatically qualify a person for citizenship. They have to be subject to the "complete jurisdiction" of the U.S.. And since the Fourteenth Amendment did not suddenly transform the cognitive abilities of newborn infants, the infant's status still must be determined through its parents. Its status at birth cannot be determined independently of its parents. It has no capacity to form any "national allegiances".
So citizenship is acquired in the same fashion as it was under the 1866 Civil Rights Act (from which the 14th Amendment was derived). And the Senators acknowledged this fact.
Can you sue a Navajoe in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them.
WRONG. The issue of proper allegiance has to be determined first and that was through the parents. Again, how do you determine an infant's personal "allegiance" at birth. You can't. Every parents' status (allegiance) determines the infant's status at birth.
No, he was talking about the Indians being sovereign.
Nope, he was talking about their allegiances to their Tribes.
A politically-correct term for "Indian."
A correct term because they are the true "natives" of America, or the American continent.
Yes, they were "quasi foreign" because they inhabited the United States. Can't be truly foreign if you're not truly foreign. But they were dealt with in every way as if they truly were a foreign nation.
The treaties that were brokered with the Indians were compromises on the part of our Government that recognized that the land was, in reality, theirs. It was precisely because they were the indigenous people that these particular treaties were issued. In this case, "sovereignty" doesn't necessarily mean that it was a "foreign" sovereignty. You really can't be a "foreigner" in your own land. So to avoid any unnecessary difficulties, they added that exclusion clause to the law.
No, Howard's quote only shows that they couldn't be true foreign nations because they inhabited the US, and not some foreign territory.
Wrong. Again, those treaties were compromises on the part of our Government that conceded that "our" land, was, in reality, their land. However, both sides understood that things were never going revert back to the way they were; prior to the arrival of the European explorers. Within that context, it would be possible for Indians to argue that their sovereignty did not actually constitute a "foreign" sovereignty.
Right. If you were born to an Indian, or your parents were ambassadors or other foreign diplomats, you were not considered to be a US citizen by birth. But as Howard said, it will "include every other class of persons."
Every other class of persons that are actually subject to the "complete jurisdiction" of the United States. Trumball made that clear. There are plenty of foreign nationals that maintain their allegiances to their country of origin; not just ambassadors or Tribal Indians.
b
Thanks FreeManN,
As Orly has points out, “All pending suits attempting to get Obama/Soetoro to produce simple documents have been dismissed on technical grounds such as the standing of the plaintiff. Therefore, the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States have never ruled on the merits of his citizenship.”
So one will break through and force the SCOTUS to deal with it.
“So one will break through and force the SCOTUS to deal with it.”
I am confident of that but I have recently communicated with 3 of the most prominent attorneys with cases now pending and IMHO, at least, 2 of them have a very real shot at being successful in getting a case heard by SCOTUS on the merits.
As most of us know, “Natural Born Citizen” appears only ONCE in the Constitution, just as does the 4-word phrase, “keep and bear arms.” In the “DC v Heller” decision, I’m struck at how the SCOTUS spends CONSIDERABLE effort to truly understand the “definitions” missing in the Constitution with the phrase “keep and bear arms”. Here’s a snippet of the SCOTUS rationale (from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf , starting on pg 10):
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
< snip >
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.”Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House . . . any Arms . . . ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16– 17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.
10 See J. Brydall, Privilegia Magnatud apud Anglos 14 (1704) (Privilege XXXIII) (“In the 21st Year of King Edward the Third, a Proclamation Issued, that no Person should bear any Arms within London, and the Suburbs”); J. Bond, A Compleat Guide to Justices of the Peace 43 (1707) (“Sheriffs, and all other Officers in executing their Offices, and all other persons pursuing Hu[e] and Cry may lawfully bear arms”); 1An Abridgment of the Public Statutes in Force and Use Relative to Scotland (1755) (entry for “Arms”: “And if any person above described shall have in his custody, use, or bear arms, being thereof convicted before one justice of peace, or other judge competent, summarily, he shall for the first offense forfeit all such arms” (quoting 1 Geo. 1, c. 54, §1)); Statute Law of Scotland Abridged 132–133 (2d ed. 1769) (“Acts for disarming the highlands” but “exempting those who have particular licenses to bear arms”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”); E. Roche, Proceedings of a Court-Martial, Held at the Council-Chamber, in the City of Cork 3 (1798) (charge VI: “With having held traitorous conferences, and with having conspired, with the like intent, for the purpose of attacking and despoiling of the arms of several of the King’s subjects, qualified by law to bear arms”); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in force in Kentucky 482 (1822) (“[I]n this country the constitution guaranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify people unnecessarily”).
Toward the end of the section on historical reference on “Keep and Bear Arms,” note the SCOTUS ruling states: “From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century.”
I suspect we will see a similar Constructionist “natural meaning” interpretation by the SCOTUS on “Natural Born Citizen” once a case gets there that has the Standing they need. Even though the Left tries to reinvent the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” the Framers’ intentions are obvious.
I concur.
Note that it was a 5-4 decision with SCALIA, ROBERTS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO in the majority.
I don’t think the decision against bo on the Eligibility issue will be that close.
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.