Posted on 03/18/2010 12:24:55 PM PDT by Polarik
From Barack Obama's own website, Fight the Smears, a statement as to his citizenship status embodied in the masthead and email to forward:
The case law you’ve presented so far doesn’t use those terms interchangeably. And you keep repeating a flawed premise about the definition being in the law or now, in the U.S. Code, when you’ve already been told that the definition is extraconstitutional. Again, repeating a false assumption doesn’t make it right.
Futhermore no court has ruled that there is an “extra-constitutional definition” of natural born citizen. That would be rather strange anyway since the term isn’t outside of the constitution, it’s within the constitution and is undefined by law or Supreme Court decision. “Extra-constitutional definitions” are nothing but legal hypotheses at best and guesses, wishes, hopes and hunches nat worst.
One more time, from Justices Scalia and Thomas in their joint concurring opinion in “Miller v. Albright” 523 U.S. 420 (1997). “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO (caps mine): birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’
Neither have I seen any source that refers to anyone being a “naturalized” citizen who was a citizen at birth.
A “naturalized” citizen is one who went through a legal “naturalization” process to become a citizen. I have never heard it refer to a person who was born a citizen.
Somehow I doubt that a legitimate source for this “nationalized at birth by statute” will be found.
First and foremost, because no court wants to overturn the outcome of a decisive popular election won by a person of historic significance and irrational cult-like popularity. No surprise courts keep finding procedural ways to avoid going to trial, because there would be a backlash unlike no other.
Futhermore no court has ruled that there is an “extra-constitutional definition” of natural born citizen.
Wrong. The Supreme Court said so at least TWICE, and that was AFTER the 14th amendment was passed.
That would be rather strange anyway since the term isn’t outside of the constitution, it’s within the constitution and is undefined by law or Supreme Court decision. “Extra-constitutional definitions” are nothing but legal hypotheses at best and guesses, wishes, hopes and hunches nat worst.
I've posted it several times. You prefer to act oblivious and start spouting off about not being in Code or Law, when we started at that point to begin with.
One more time, from Justices Scalia and Thomas in their joint concurring opinion in “Miller v. Albright” 523 U.S. 420 (1997). “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO (caps mine): birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’
There were two sources of citizenship PRIOR to the 14th amendment, which is why the 14th amendment made reference to them. This isn't some earthshaking revelation and it doesn't change the concept that natural born citizen is a subset of citizenship at birth. We know there was more than one way to have citizenship at birth, because it could be at birth on U.S. soil through citizen parents, through birth to naturalized citizens on U.S. soil or at birth abroad to U.S. parents, such as explained in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Today, there are even more ways to get U.S. citizenship at birth, but again, they aren't all the same as being a natural born citizen. To be born with citizenship at birth without naturalization doesn't inherently make anyone a natural born citizen, which is why Wong Kim Ark, was not declared to be a natural born citizen, and why the Ankeny decision acknowledged it didn't.
All you have to do is look at any naturalization act of Congress. In the early acts, you’ll notice there were no declarations of citizenship to those born of citizen parents. Instead, the Acts dealt with recognizing at birth citizenship, for example, for the children of naturalized citizens. As a technicality of transpiring through a naturalization act, that would be naturalization at birth. And perhaps the same for those children born of citizen overseas.
First and foremost, because no court wants to overturn the outcome of a decisive popular election won by a person of historic significance and irrational cult-like popularity. No surprise courts keep finding procedural ways to avoid going to trial, because there would be a backlash unlike no other.
Would you be so kind as to provide links to those two Supreme Court decisions so that I can read them in context?
Did you really say “being in Code or Law?” Are you really so ignorant of our form of government that you don’t even know that the US Code is the compendium of all of the statuatory laws of the land? My God, Edge, take a 6th grade civics class.
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693.
This much is indisputable. At issue in Wong Kim Ark was the citizenship of a child, born on American soil to Chinese nationals. Later, Wong Kim Ark, the child, left America, and returned from China during the operation of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which forbade the immigration of non-citizen Chinese. The Court held that Wong Kim Ark was entitled to re-immigrate, not just because he was a citizen, but because he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (caps mine), because (1) British law defined “natural born citizens” to include those born to foreign, non-consular parents on British soil, (2) American law tracked British law, and (3) this definition had never been modified. The Court did not have to examine the issue of natural born citizenship, but they did – explicitly, and at considerable length. If you don’t believe me, read the case, at least through page 693 (don’t worry, it starts on 649).
Nor was Wong Kim Ark the first case to confer natural-born citizenship upon children born in the United States to alien parents. The Ninth Circuit beat the Supreme Cour to the punch, See In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905, 907 (C. C. Cal. 1884, as the Supreme Court itself agreed later in the opinion:
In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.”
Tell it to Justices Scalia and Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court because they obviously disagree with you.
There are two types of American citizens: citizens-at-birth and naturalized citizens. Citizens-at-birth are natural born citizens and they can be elected President. Naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens and they can’t be president.
Lack of judicial integrity and failure to uphold the Constitution.
Would you be so kind as to provide links to those two Supreme Court decisions so that I can read them in context?
No, they've been cited aplenty. Not playing along while you try to figure out a new way to spin your argument.
Did you really say “being in Code or Law?”
Was I not supposed to comment on your choice of words?? BTW, I can tell by your snarkiness and the number of attempted insults that you realize you're losing the argument.
Let me quote directly from Wong Kim Ark in hopes that even someone of your obviously limited intelligence might get it:
Nowhere in what you quoted does it say that being native-born = natural born. The Binney quote emphasizes that being born in the country (of an alien) makes you "AS MUCH OF A CITIZEN" but does NOT say that it MAKES ONE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Binney's comment, by the way, precedes the 14th amendment. It's making references to statutory declarations of citizenship, and not the effect of the 14th amendment. It certainly makes no claim on presidential eligibility. Come back when you're ready to drop the pointless insults and when you're ready to admit you're wrong.
It's like trying to argue the sky is blue with these people! It's exasperating. All nine justices could rule in favor of Obama (and you can guarantee they would) and these folks would still be prattling on about Vattel and their "native born is not natural born" absurdities.
I got so tired of arguing the same thing over and over again that I resigned myself to simply posting Chief Justice Roberts' USSC mailing address. They can take it up with him. He clearly had no problem with Obama's eligibility, having willingly administered two Oaths of Office.
For the exact phrase, would you settle for the US Supreme Court Center at Justia ? Which says:
" But in Rogers v. Bellei, the Court refused to extend this holding to persons statutorily naturalized at birth abroad because one of their parents was a citizen and similarly refused to apply Schneider. "
The case in question:
Rodger v. Bellei,, 401 U.S. 815, which says in part.
The central fact in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a "Fourteenth Amendment first sentence" citizen
And, quoting from Wong Kim Ark, they say:
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
More just from from "Ark".
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
So, at least since "Ark" the Supreme Court has indicated that those citizens born abroad to US Citizen parent(s) are citizens due to Congress power over "Naturalization", and are "naturalized".
But this is all silly, because if it were not for laws, collectively known as the Constitution, passed by legislatures (not by Nature, nor God), there would be no citizens
The Constitution was not created by any "legislature". Not Congress nor any state's legislature. (Although by it's own terms it may be modified by them, following the procedure laid out therein). The Constition itself says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The People, not a legislature. The Constitution as the highest law in the land, overrides any statute law, in fact any statute law in conflict with the Constitution is not law at all, but merely has the form of law.
First of all, I might remind you that it’s not laws passed by Congress that I’m concerned with, but what it says in the Constitution. Specifically, the 14th amendment.
That says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
It says nothing about natural born citizens. As shown above "citizen at birth" is not identical to "natural born citizen" in the case of those born abroad to US parent(S), why would it be so in the case of native born (that is born in the US) citizens?
Congress steps in, with its statutes, which to you cannot be anything but naturalizers,
Not just me, the Supreme Court, see above.
I assume you mean to say that these people cannot be “natural” because not nature but merely Congress says they are citizens.
No, because they were not "natural born" as that term was understood by the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, which Congress, actign alone, can not change.
In conclusion, “naturalized at birth” is a crazy, meaningless phrase dreamt up by cranks who have been backed into a corner.
As everyone can see, that turns out not to be the case.
I'm sworn an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution, not acts of Congress, against all enemies foreign and domestic. You are starting to sound like something akin to one of those enemies of the Constitution. DO NOT CALL ME A CRANK AGAIN.
That turns out not to be the case. See reply 148
The whole class of people born outside the country but citizens at birth under the statues, were termed "naturalized" in, among other cases, Wong Kim Ark, the very case so many use to imply that citizen at birth == natural born citizen. Since they are naturalized, they can hardley natural born
Exactly.
Again, there are two kinds of citizens:
Citizens by statute.
Citizens by nature.
The first kind have to be declared citizens by a law of naturalization (even naturalization at birth by EITHER jus soli OR by jus sanguinis).
The child born of parents who are citizens of a country, on the soil of the country, IS a citizen of that country by NATURE; he does not need any statute to declare him a citizen. Only such a child can be called a natural born citizen of a country.
See reply #148.
Because the cases have been thrown out on jurisdictional, standing and/or justicibility grounds, before "discovery" which would allow for such a court order to be issued.
How do you then explain that the Supreme Court, in Wong Kim Ark and other cases, called anyone who is a citizen solely by operation of statute law, "naturalized"?
is it me or are the signatures of both Nancy and Shalifa different on the two documents ?
The 2nd looks like a forgery, tho to what purpose I wouldn’t begin to imagine.
See Reply 148
How do you then explain that the Supreme Court, in Wong Kim Ark and other cases, called anyone who is a citizen solely by operation of statute law, “naturalized”?
Because the cases have been thrown out on jurisdictional, standing and/or justicibility grounds, before “discovery” which would allow for such a court order to be issued.
Not what the courts said.
You just cant' get past the unsupported assertion that "born citizen" and "natrural born citizen" are the same. They are not. The word "natural" was put in there for a reason.
I guess reading is not your forte.
BTW, I am, or was at least, a rocket engineer of sorts. In my case, the sort that are designed to go boom at the end of their travel.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System. View the following information in light of the potential for a Grand Jury CRIMINAL (not civil) investigation of Barack Obama for forgery/fraud in conjunction with his internet posted Certification of Live Birth.
OBAMA’S BIRTH RECORDS CAN BE SUBPOENAED by a prosecuting attorney.
From the American Bar Association:
What is the purpose of the grand jury?
The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.
The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.
Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.
In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.
Does every jurisdiction use a grand jury?
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a grand jury indictment for federal criminal charges. Only about half the states now use grand juries.
What is the typical term of a grand jury?
In virtually every federal jurisdiction, there is at least one grand jury sitting every day. Generally, most federal indictments involve grand juries that sit for five days a week for a period of one month. For cases involving complex and long-term investigations (such as those involving organized crime, drug conspiracies or political corruption), “long term” grand juries will be impaneled. Such “long term” grand juries typically sit fewer days each week, and their terms can be extended in six month increments for up to three years. The schedules vary among the states that still have grand juries.
How are grand jurors selected?
In most jurisdictions, grand jurors are drawn from the same pool of potential jurors as are any other jury panels, and in the same manner. The pool generally consists of names culled from various databases, such as national voter lists, motor vehicle license lists and public utilities lists.
Does anyone screen grand jurors for biases or other improper factors?
No. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for biases or other improper factors.
How independent is the grand jury?
The grand jury is independent in theory, and although the instructions given to the grand jurors inform them they are to use their judgment, the practical realities of the situation mitigate against it.
The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness’s testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.
The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury be read any instructions on the law, and such instructions are rarely given.
Why are grand jury proceedings secret?
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation.
Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?
In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.
Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?
At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness’s grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.
Who must testify before a grand jury?
A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.
Can a lawyer be called to testify about his or her client?
A lawyer might be called; but the lawyer/client privilege shields him or her from being compelled to testify about a conversation with a client unless the conversation related to an ongoing or future crime or fraud of the client.
Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.
What is a grant of immunity?
A grant of immunity to a grand jury witness overcomes the witness’s privilege against self-incrimination, and the witness is then required to testify. The prosecutor is prohibited from using that testimony or leads from it to bring charges against the witness. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the immunized testimony. In practice, it is difficult to successfully prosecute someone for criminal activity they discussed in immunized testimony unless the prosecution had a fully prepared case before immunity was granted.
Many states grant the witness “transactional immunity,” barring prosecution for a transaction discussed in the immunized testimony regardless of whether there are independent sources of evidence.
Can a witness refuse to appear before the grand jury?
Not without risking being held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena to compel their testimony.
What happens if a witness is found in contempt?
A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.
If the grand jury refuses to return an indictment, can the prosecutor come back and try again, or is that barred by double jeopardy?
Double jeopardy does not apply to the grand jury. In practice, however, it is uncommon for a prosecutor, having failed once, to try again without good reason. The Department of Justice requires the prosecutor to obtain permission of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to present the case again.
Can a grand jury target offer evidence of his or her own?
For the most part, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify unless subpoenaed, nor any right to compel the grand jury to hear certain witnesses or evidence. Often, however, if a target requests an opportunity to testify, he or she will be permitted by the prosecutor to do so but without a grant of immunity.
The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a target. In federal grand juries, exculpatory evidence need not be presented, although in many states exculpatory evidence must be submitted for the grand jury’s consideration. Prosecutors have the right in federal grand juries to introduce hearsay and to otherwise utilize evidence that would not be admissible in a regular trial.
Is there a judge in the grand jury room when testimony is being taken?
No. Normal rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, and a judge is generally needed only to rule on privilege issues or issues relating to contempt.
What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?
None. The target’s only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony.
You know, it strikes me as strange that judges who seem to like to put stuff in historical context, and explain what words mean within that context, and how that meaning has been passed down to us through court decisions, would put in a word for a reason without saying what that reason was.
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.