Agreed. No doubt about it.
Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
Indeed, having the Chief Justice administer the oath is not a Constitutional requirement. The oath need not even be taken orally. (military officers and enlisted take their oaths both orally and in writing) Not all Presidents were administered the oath by the Chief Justice, and those that did not included more than the obvious "emergency" cases where a VP has to step up to replace a fallen President. The whole Inaguration thing is just ceremony. It could, and IMHO should, be handled much more quietly. Why should everyone freeze their ashes off in a DC January, when the oath could be taken inside, with witnesses. Maybe even a few days before the official handover date. It's not being adminsitered the oath that is the final step to becoming President, that could be done anytime before noon on January 20th, when the Constitution says the outgoing President's term ends, and the new one's begins. For it's the clock and the calander that is that makes the President elect into the President... Provided he has met all the other requirements. 35 or over, 14 or more years of US resident, get majority of electoral votes, and be a natural born citizen. Fail any of those, and when the time comes, you are still not President.
Jim, just take a look at his “about” (profile) page, you don’t need to go further to understand what we daily get from this guy. And yesterday and today Star Traveler hijacked another thread regardless Admin Mod. reminded her of your previous warning!!!
Communists are also inhuman!
Both of them?
They were the dissent, what they thought the effect of the decision was means nothing.
Now the talking points are reaching into the dissent of court cases to determine what the majority opinion means?
WOW, that great sign says it all. Thank you!!
Agreed. No doubt about it.
HAHAHAHAHA...I see you wear your drone cone proudly as all you have is the infamous WKA ruling. Talk about clinging to your liberal factions in the name of social justice. Grey also wrote the opinion for Elk v Wilkins which, I might add, is the opinion that held the 14th Amendment to IN FACT be constitutional. Hmmm, let's see what Grey had to say then & who he relied on when he made that decision as well as ALL members of the court who unanimously agreed on the definition of ‘reject to the jurisdiction’, including the dissenters:
Although the statement by the majority in Slaughter-House was dicta, the position regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” language advanced there was subsequently adopted as holding by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins.[10] John Elk was born on an Indian reservation and subsequently moved to non-reservation U.S. territory, renounced his former tribal allegiance, and claimed U.S. citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause. This Court held that the claimant was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, which required that he be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”[11] Elk did not meet the jurisdictional test because, as a member of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States. Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” according to the Court.[12]
Drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the Court continued:
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.[13]
Your usurper owed a political allegiance to a foreign nation when he was born as do ALL children born with a foreign parent, thus they are not and never will be a natural born citizen and in the eyes of the founders of the constitution, the 14th & the 1868 Expatriation Act, all children born to a foreign father, were themselves aliens at birth & the census records from 1790-1890 confirm it.
Immigration investigation By United States. Congress. House. Committee on Immigration and Naturalization....page 668: I want to give you some proof, taken also from tlie census of 1880, showing that this assertion of mine, this calculation is correct. In 1880 the foreigners and their children (not grandchildren) outnumbered the natives in the following States.
The record breaks down the inhabitants of the US into 2 categories, natives & foreigns & their children. Doesn't get much plainer than that. If the US Govt recorded children born to aliens as aliens in 1890, then the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction' means exactly what Grey's ruling in Elk held it to be. But then Grey in the Elk opinion relied on a hundred years of US law, not subverting it to go to the draconian feudal law of England as he did some 14 years later in WKA.
Just so that she can bet Buckyeye’s opinion, and he step right into the cow manure, like Rush says every dims do that same every time!!!
LOL!
If I see an earring on the right ear; that’s very informative. I dare say it’s also a fact!
That name is code word to alarm all the SP (FINOs) just wait and see Star to show up again!!!
It is true..for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles..but not every one knows this..
It is true for all persons that natural born citizens derive from two US citizen parents ..but not every one knows this..
The statement about US bases abroad not being US territory is true, but most often comes up when one parent, usually but lately not always, the mother, is not a US citizen or national.
One female solider I know of, she was the singer in a coworker's band, is married to a German national. (He was appalled when she was handed an AR-15 after one practice session, went prone and drilled the target. :) )
It also has come up when neither parent is a citizen, but a birth still occurs on a US base.
I've read that state department manual, more than once. It was written after children born abroad to citizen parents were once again made citizens at birth by statute. The state department is not concerned with natural born citizenship, as they admit, just citizenship. Those cases which would fit "natural born" under the Vattel definitions, would be citizens anyway, so they don't devote much verbiage to that, beyond indicating the documentation requirements.
That manual also says such children of two parents born abroad, or anyone else born abroad but a citizen at birth is natrual-born, under the statutes. If the statutes are wrong on that, they can also be wrong the other direction, and they are.
It is true..for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles..but not every one knows this..
It is true for all persons that natural born citizens derive from two US citizen parents ..but not every one knows this..
All the SP here will argue, that YOU don't have right to know or find out, and they will continue to spam you out of the water. They will say that's none of your business!!!
The dissent shows how two Supreme Court Justices understood the decision. It is not binding, but it is illustrative.
Also, it ought to be impossible to read the first half dozen pages of the decision without understanding that the dissent is entirely correct. And indeed, it is the reasoning the courts have followed since.
That is why the Indiana courts found the birther arguments silly, and why various texts years before Obama considered the citizenship of the parents irrelevant to the meaning of natural born citizen.
Their argument would need to be overturned for Obama to be ruled ineligible. And while I agree with the dissent, I don’t see any sign the courts will overturn WKA.
They argue
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution...”
They then review the meaning of natural born subject to determine the meaning of natural born citizen, choosing common law instead of Vattel:
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision...”
They then describe what is meant by natural born subject:
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Notice a NBS included anyone born in the land, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of diplomats or the children of an invading army.
They then explain
“’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”
The exceptions afterward mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
“1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such
Page 169 U. S. 658
person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.”
“2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.”
The go on:
“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.”
Having shown what it meant in English common law, they switch to how it was interpreted in American cases.
The intent of the cases then cited is to show that citizenship by birth overrides any other form in US law.
They cite Rhodes:
“”All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion
Page 169 U. S. 663
that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
They then switch from discussing NBS & NBC to say
“That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
Since the case before them doesn’t require WKA to be declared a NBC, they don’t bother - but the first half dozen pages inescapably leads to WKA being a natural born citizen, since he meets the requirements of a natural born subject, and the court holds them to mean the same thing.
However, they go on to quote many other opinions, all of which are meant to show that the citizenship of the parent is irrelevant, if the child was born under the jurisdiction of another country.
This sets up later courts to find that there are two and only two types of citizenship in the USA - by birth, and by naturalization. And it sets up later court usage of native born and natural born as interchangeable.
That is why you have comments like this:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ”
Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
Ed Meese isn’t exactly a flaming liberal (http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Inside-Edwin-Meese-III/dp/0895265222/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3). His analysis in 2005 - well before Obama began his run - is typical.
You may disagree with the analysis. I think WKA should be overturned. But there it is, and anyone bringing a court case needs to think about it and realize what they are asking BEFORE they enter the court.
Sorry you don’t like WKA, but you won’t win in court without specific arguments meant to overturn it. You also won’t get anywhere without standing, and the individual citizen does NOT have standing to challenge a national election.
Until these are addressed by a court case intended to do so, the birther argument is dead in the water.
What you will get is:
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs case.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
thanks you! I miss half of Rush every day, but enjoy every minute I get!
“It would have been 24/7 for years after the election..even though her ticket lost. “
ain’t that the truth!
That a Naturalization Act pertaining to foreign births of citizen parents, without qualification, was allowed to stand at all is indication that law pertaining to such births fall under the rubric of naturalization, a power enumerated to the Legislature under the Constitution. Therefore it did not and does not pertain to natural born citizenship. That is why the original, 1790 Act was repealed and replaced with that of 1795. Look at the very first sentence of the 1795 Act: “For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution.” It replaced the term “natural born citizen” with just “citizen.” They knew they’d gone outside the bounds of their enumerated power and corrected it.
There is no recognition of natural born citizenship for children born abroad to citizen parents in service to the military, Vattel notwithstanding. Vattel spelled out the necessary qualifications for what came to be known as a natural born citizen. born to a sovereign citizen father under a constitutional republic. That is just the sort of government that was established, and just the sort of citizenship as well. So, those who dismiss Vattel and The Law Of Nations are in error, imho, especially when espousing a strictly English origin for citizenship based upon subjects of feudal liege. We revolted against exactly that.
But, Vattel’s additional detail regarding citizens born abroad to parents in service to the country does not appear to have been embraced. That is what we’ve got to contend with, here. I don’t *want* children of military parents born abroad not to be natural born. I just see no indication at all that they are, and a great deal indicating that they aren’t going back to the very earliest years of the Republic.
I agree.
Any criticism of Obama was off-limits during the campaign. Any other challenger would've been chewed up and spit out by the Clinton machine. It actually pained me to watch Hillary resign herself to lose to this guy because any bad word she said about him hurt her poll numbers. The American people, too many of them anyways, did not demand any investigation so the media didn't do their job. The American people didn't ask questions and Obama didn't offer answers. People genuinely wanted to like the guy and didn't want to learn any details that might change their opinion.
The system isn't broke. America just didn't use it this time around, choosing instead to roll the dice and vote for an enigma. We might as well have had a presidential election by lottery.
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.