Posted on 04/29/2010 8:44:11 AM PDT by Thurston_Howell_III
At this point, there's little likelihood he's going to be required to submit any birth documentation to anyone. The Arizona state senate has already chickened out of passing their proposed legislation. I have doubts that it will be passed in Texas either.
Why would he want to end the speculation, when birthers have been such a boon to him in painting his electoral foes as irresponsible kooks like Oreally Taintz?
He doesn't want to end the speculation if it proves him a fraud, so he doesn't exactly have a choice. His approval numbers aren't too great, so the so-called birther movement isn't helping him.
You think he is going to be left off the ballot in these States? Really?
He can't prove his place of birth, so yes, if there were a law in place, he will not be on those ballots.
And how massive will be the alleged conspiracy when he is NOT left off the ballot?
Again, we don't have any laws on the books yet, so it's premature to speculate about alleged conspiracies.
Care to speculate on what the opinion will be when and if the COLB IS submitted and 0bambam IS put on the ballot?
It's not going to happen, so there's no point in speculating.
Just as the birthers have condemned everyone in Washington DC as “knowing” that 0bama is not eligible, condemned conservative idea makers like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for not carrying their water; when 0bama submits a COLB to Texas and/or Arizona and is put on the ballot - a new massive conspiracy will be alleged.
As far as citizens born beyond the sea being "citizens" and not "natural born citizens," the United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to three years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.
Of course, you could always look it up yourself instead of caterwauling idiocies on this forum, but that wouldn't be supportive of your end, now would it?
Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen, period. You know that, you've been told again and again and again over the past two years.
And, even that loopy old bloviator Justice Horace Gray couldn't "extend" English law into United States law.
You seem to be having no small amount of difficulty with the three branches of government, and the system of checks and balances created by the three. They are: the Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative.
The powers of each branch are specifically enumerated, meaning limited, by the Constitution itself. I'm sure you're not aware of the unintentional comedy you've provided on this thread, claiming that Congress has the judicial power to rule John McCain a natural born citizen. Now, we get to giggle while you claim the Judicial branch gets to create naturalization laws, which were specifically enumerated to the Legislature.
You've got to be putting us on with this wackiness, just pulling our leg.
You have yet to back up your inane contention that U.S. citizens born overseas are not “natural born citizens” and that the law of 1795 changed this.
Congress thought it had the power to rule on the “natural born citizen” status of John McCain, and that ruling contradicts your inane and unsupported view of the law such that U.S. citizens born overseas are somehow just “citizens” but not “natural born citizens”.
I also find it amusing that the hard core birthers are fixated on the idea that NEITHER of the Presidential candidates of 2008 were actually eligible.
No it didn't. It recognized that English common law was still practiced and observed at the founding of our country, but this was because we recognized that some who were native born were still British subjects because they adhered to the crown, not the new nation. Not all states applied this principle to the children of foreigners, so there's no way Wong was ruled a natural born subject.
This principle was extended (not the law itself, the precedent or principle of the law) to Wong Kim Ark in the legal reasoning to conclude that he was “as much a citizen” as the child of two citizens. “As much a citizen” based upon the principle that he would be a “natural born subject” doesn't mean “less of a citizen” and “not a natural born citizen”; despite your overweening desire to read it as such.
Being as much of something doesn't make you the same as the object of comparison. An apple is as much a piece of fruit as an orange, but an apple is not an orange. By that principle, Wong is not a natural born citizen, but a citizen. And in Obama's case, as the child of one citizen, he is nothing more than a fruit.
Congress thought it had the power to rule on the “natural born citizen” status of John McCain, and that ruling contradicts your inane and unsupported view of the law such that U.S. citizens born overseas are somehow just “citizens” but not “natural born citizens”.
They didn't 'rule' on anything. That passed a resolution, which is more like a vote of confidence. Ironically, this vote and resolution was unnecessary. Under Vattel's definition of natural born citizen, as the child born in the armies of the state, McCain is a natural born citizen ... period.
So now a U.S. citizen born overseas IS a “natural born citizen”, in the example of John McCain, because his father was still under the jurisdiction of the USA (just as Wong Kim Arks parents were under the jurisdiction of the USA).
So much for your statement that the law of 1795 made it so that U.S. citizens born overseas were just “citizens” but not “natural born citizens”.
Can you keep your story straight? Obviously not. Amusing!
So now a U.S. citizen born overseas IS a “natural born citizen”, in the example of John McCain, because his father was still under the jurisdiction of the USA (just as Wong Kim Arks parents were under the jurisdiction of the USA).
So much for your statement that the law of 1795 made it so that U.S. citizens born overseas were just “citizens” but not “natural born citizens”.
Can you keep your story straight? Obviously not. Amusing!
There was no "ruling" in Wong Kim Ark other than that Mr. Wong was a citizen under the auspices of the 14th Amendment. Citizen, period. That is the language of the 14th itself. Citizen. Nothing else.
As far as my backing up my "contention," I provided you with a synopsis of the three areas that were altered in the subsequent 1795 Naturalization Act, that replaced the repealed 1790 Act. I suggeset you go back and read what it says.
Regarding Senate Resolution 511 pertaining to the eligibility of John McCain, Congress doesn't "think," Congress presumes. Congress made a nonbinding resolution with no force of law, apparently out of a sense of collegiality, because it certainly doesn't bear up to even casual scrutiny.
You're not grasping legalities and you're not grasping separation of powers, allmendream. They matter under the Constitution.
The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to three years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.
First you said that those born as U.S. citizens overseas were citizens but not natural born citizens.
Now you acknowledge that John McCain, born a U.S. citizen overseas, is a natural born citizen.
And a naturalized citizen or “generic” citizen (assuming there even is such a category) is not “just as much a citizen” as a natural born citizen, because they are not eligible for the Presidency.
“Just as much a citizen” based under the English principle that would make him a “natural born subject” doesn't carve out a “not naturalized but certainly not natural born” category of citizenship. The commonsense reading of a precedent that would make him a “natural born subject” and “just as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens is that Kim Wong Ark was a natural born citizen as well.
There are, under U.S. law, only two types of citizenship; and only two ways of gaining U.S. citizenship. Either one is born a citizen, and is thus a natural born citizen; or one is naturalized as a citizen, and is thus a naturalized citizen.
But apparently the law and the Constitution only have meaning to you can misread and misinterpret them the way you wish to.
Can you follow that, or is that sort of higher cognitive function beyond you?
If you say something, and I ask you to support it, repeating your assertion without support doesn't support it.
Logic. Try it sometime.
My statements are consistent. Yours strain credulity.
First you said that those born as U.S. citizens overseas were citizens but not natural born citizens.
Correct, as per various Naturalization Acts of Congress, since 1795.
Now you acknowledge that John McCain, born a U.S. citizen overseas, is a natural born citizen.
No, I've not acknowledged this, since this has not been demonstrated. The "Sense of the Senate" resolution, SR 511, purports to make this claim, but the basis for their conclusions seem to hinge upon the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed and replaced with the 1795 Act.
And a naturalized citizen or “generic” citizen (assuming there even is such a category) is not “just as much a citizen” as a natural born citizen, because they are not eligible for the Presidency.
"Citizen" means citizen. There are a variety of types of citizen. There are ample cites from Supreme Court justices, beginning with the very first, to back up the claim that the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a citizen, regardless of how that citizenship was acquired, are identical. Being elected President is not a right. Being elected Senator without the requisite length of residency is also precluded, but I don't see you ranting about this qualification.
“Just as much a citizen” based under the English principle that would make him a “natural born subject” doesn't carve out a “not naturalized but certainly not natural born” category of citizenship. The commonsense reading of a precedent that would make him a “natural born subject” and “just as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens is that Kim Wong Ark was a natural born citizen as well.
We are no longer an English colony, allmendream. There is no monarchy in the United States. According to Chief Justice John Marshall, in a constitutional republic such as the United States, sovereignty devolves upon The People in the absence of a monarch. That's quite different from English law, isn't it? It's different because it had to be, our systems are different. One is a parliamentary monarchy, the other is a representative republic. You apparently would be shocked at just how much our law is at variance with the country we fought two wars with over being flipping British subjects. If you think legal decisions in another country comprise precedent under law in this country, you are hopelessly confused.
There are, under U.S. law, only two types of citizenship; and only two ways of gaining U.S. citizenship. Either one is born a citizen, and is thus a natural born citizen; or one is naturalized as a citizen, and is thus a naturalized citizen.
How do inhabitants of U.S. territories become citizens, allmendream? By statute. They were not naturalized. This alone makes your statement patently untrue. There are original citizens, there are native born citizens, there are natural born citizens, there are citizens by statute. There were 14th Amendment citizens, women with derivative citizenship and minor children with derivative citizenship as well. Delving into the noncitizens born in this country, there were foreigners, there were indians not taxed and there were slaves.
But apparently the law and the Constitution only have meaning to you can misread and misinterpret them the way you wish to.
I've spent time researching this matter, and have consistently represented the Constitutional case. You've pushed your own emotional agenda that has nothing to do with the Constitution.
I cited the Naturalization Act in question, allmendream. If you can’t grasp that, I’m afraid you’re going to have to remain adrift.
“Under Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, as the child born in the armies of the state, McCain (an individual born beyond the sea) is a natural born citizen ... period.”
“No, I've not acknowledged this (the NBC status of McCain), since this has not been demonstrated.”
Consistency. You don't have it. Logic. Yours be ill’in.
So to your attempt to source your statement by repeating your statement we can add the mischaracterization of your own words as if they were within the Naturalization Act itself.
Such shoddy “scholarship” is par for the course with birthers.
Next you will tell me that there was a travel ban on Pakistan mayhap?
An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;
SECTION 1. BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise. First, he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the Ohio River, or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject. Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreigh prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years. It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.
SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject. Moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court that, during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his, moreover, making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate.
APPROVED, January the 29th, 1795:
GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States
You clearly have me confused with El Gato. He and I have debated this point numerous times. Yes, Vattel does say this. There is the little problem of the Naturalization Act of 1795, that I just posted for your edification, since you're apparently incapable of looking it up yourself.
Our own State Department says that children born overseas to parents in the military may not be Constitutional natural born citizens. This does not help your slavish insistence upon English law, any more than it helps an insistence upon a purely Vattel-derived meaning. We have the Constitution, we have cites from Founders, we have legal precedent and we have ober dicta from legal cases. The repeal of the 1790 Naturalization Act also reinforces the notion that the Constitutional meaning of natural born does not include overseas births. Otherwise, they could not legislate this via an Act.
This section you have obviously misrepresented as either your own words, or as appearing within the act itself.
Shoddy scholarship.
Birthers cite Vattel when they want to, but ignore it when they want to.
They cite English precedent when they think it furthers their case, and ignore English precedent when it obviously destroys utterly their contention.
They cite words cut and pasted from Wikipedia as if they were their own words, and then claim that those words of opinion about the act were within the act itself.
And you actually expect to be taken seriously?
U.S. law has only two sources of citizenship, according to Scalia, birth as a citizen, or citizenship through naturalization.
To me it makes sense, perfectly consistent with English precedent, Vattel, the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law; that if one is born a citizen then one is a “natural born citizen” whereas if one is naturalized as a citizen then one is a “naturalized citizen”.
Anton Scalia either did not consider the possibility that the United States may acquire more territory in the future, or he regards statutory citizenship en masse to be a form of naturalization. Which is it, do you suppose? I'm going with naturalization en masse.
So, that leaves us with two means of acquiring citizenship. Birth or naturalization. Now, what other areas of controversy exist? It would seem that various groups and individuals seek furtherance of the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was designed specifically to deal with citizenship being denied former slaves in certain states. Would you say those former slaves were born citizens, or were naturalized?
Clearly they were not born citizens under the law, otherwise they'd never have been considered slaves. So, the 14th Amendment naturalized those born here, who were being denied citizenship. Let's extend this, since you're so fond of extending legalities, to children born of alien parents. Either they are naturalized at birth by virtue of the precedent set by the 14th Amendment, or they are aliens and foreigners as defined by Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett. Which do you suppose is the correct meaning? I'm going with Chief Justice Waite.
You can continue making it up as you go along, whatever. You don't know what you're talking about. I provided the United States Naturalization Act of 1795 for you, chapter and verse, to the letter. And yet, you seem to think it came from Wikipedia? Nonsense. It's right there in black and white, the 1795 Act repealed and replaced the 1790 Act, and you can plainly see that children born beyond the seas are not regarded as natural born.
You've got problems, allmendream.
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.