Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!
Justice Ginsburg:
My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg again:
There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
Her son-in-law is Kenyan?
It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.
Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.” House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
Source: federalistblog.us
I didn't mention BO in my previous post to Condor 51.
Gee, I guess you did, but forgot.
Only a President can be impeached.
As much as I would like to see him be adjudged disqualified and be removed, that doesn't seem likely to happen through the courts during this session of Congress. But, I am with you on his deserving it.
Note the Honduran example for hints as to his response to this, however. Like Zelaya threateningly holed up in a friendly embassy, or Odinga causing his followers to riot and murder, holding out for a newly minted government post, 0bama is not likely to just give up, buoyed and hoisted on his minions' unfounded devotion, and such madness as their '00 mayhem, claiming W to have been "selected, not elected."
HF
In fact, the previous SCOTUS decisions have made it clear that a person born within the US, *regardless of the citizenship of the parents*, is natural born.
"You are deliberately misstating facts. There has never been such a decision."
No, you are deliberately mistating facts.
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
I am pretty sure your right. Had my hopes up after McCain ran. There is a special exemption for Panama where he was born..
Opinions are all over the grid square on this one. And even though I am writing this from a Holiday Inn Express, I am not a lawyer.
I tend to come down on the side of original intent and the framers would tell us, if we could ask, that citizenship is passed on to children from the father, so that whatever citizenship or fealty to a soverign my apply to the father, it also applies to the child and that this conveyance of citizen is understood to be “natural born”. The actual physical place of birth is not the determinant. Thus, the children of diplomats born in the U.S. and the children of chattel slaves who were not citizens, do not become natural born citizens by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil. Conversely, the a child of a male U.S. citizen born abroad would be considered a “natural born” citizen. That’s my take of contemporary thought and law.
Of course, there’s been alot of water over the dam since then. The law no longer favors fathers over mothers in the way that was common in the 18th and 19th centuries. The 14th Amendment also changed the way some view birth on U.S. soil, although I don’t think that this has been thoroughly challenged in the courts. Certainly, the specific circumstances for President Obama have not been tested in the courts, so we don’t really know.
I believe that President Obama was born in Hawaii sometime around 1961 and his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham. The rest, hard to say since the only B.C. that I’ve seen in the public square was a forgery. If the B.C. is correct, then the question of a child born to a foreign subject on U.S. soil is still an issue and would have to be resolved in the courts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion is interesting and applies to my family (my brother was born in Germany to U.S. citizen parents). I think I agree with her, but my opinion doesn’t count. Her opinion counts 1/9. But, Obama’s case would be a different question and would require a different opinion based on a different set of facts.
... that was not enacted until after his birth.
You. Know. This.
So, stop trying to muddy the waters and confuse people.
Mr. Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen. Not a natural born citizen, just a citizen.
Interesting tidbit...
It's far more interesting, too:
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
>Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
You can read the remainder of this excellent article here:
Defining Natural-Born Citizen - The Federalist Blog
Again: England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Yes, this is only a question and answer.
We are dealing with a question of first impression here. The Court system has never had to deal with the issue of a usurper in the Office of the Presidency.
So sorry, that we can’t satisfy the seekers for perfection with an already adjudicated case. We can only look at what we know to be true and hope for the best.
By the way this “lawyer’s opinion was shared by lawyers on BOTH sides of this particular case, and apparently by most members of the court. It really ought not to be a controversial point at all, anyway.
Your statement is ignorant, ill informed, and most certainly not correct.
I posted this link earlier in response to you, but it seems not to have made it through. It has a tabular chart showing the changes that have been made to this section of the law over the years. It ought to satisfy you as to my point about the law as it existed in 1961.
The answer is yes. There are some - not many, but some early quotations and references - indicating fairly conclusively that the Vattel definition is precisely what the framers had in mind. These can be researched on the web. The Federalist Society is a good place to start.
I wish you and others would stop dragging Wong Kim Ark into the debate. The case is NOT on point. Moreover, the dicta in this case is often lamebrained, wrongheaded, untrue as to facts cited.
The HOLDING of the case does not support your views in any case. Wong Kim Ark was not trying to establish that he was a Natural Born Citizen, and the court did not reach that conclusion, either.
Yes, it does go into detail about the War of 1812, I was somewhat confused about the citation given at the link as it listed the speech as being given about 50 years after King died. I thought it would be interesting to show where the quote came from and take it in context, which I think the context shows that it is not about people born in the US, but those naturalized.
The English view of a natural born subject did play a role in why we went to war with them. However, I doubt that 25 years previously they decided to specifically chuck one piece of English common law, while keeping the rest and not even bother to discuss it.
I have a hard time believing that the SC won’t consider the English common law if they ever undertake answering this question. It has to be the starting point for an understanding of many of our laws. There are any number of other factors to consider, but on a subject where there is very little case law that discusses it at all and none directly on point they will look to it. They discuss it at length in one of the closest cases to the issue at hand, Wong Kim Ark.
You could be right that it is to be disregarded totally, but I think any understanding of what the Framers intended by the statement has to take into account the law they were all familiar with at that time. I think even an originalist could easily come to the conclusion that it simply meant born in the US as opposed to naturalized.
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.