Posted on 06/12/2010 6:55:06 PM PDT by bushpilot1
There is ample information in this book to show Obama is not qualified to be President based on the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution.
The subject book is being blocked by Google no doubt on the behest of the White House.
Obama contends he was born in Hawaii...well.. we say "being born is a church does not make one a Christian".
The natural-born or native is one born in the country of citizen parents.
"The country of the child is that of the father."
"There is" says McLeod, "something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child's parents to that society.
"In the ordinary concerns of life, there is no need for such minute distinctions; and the majority of men are possessed of too little discrimination to understand it.
"Every statesmen are not always wise; and designing men find it for their interest to keep up a confusion(Obots) of ideas upon important subjects."
"In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary that I distinctly state to you the true bond which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage."
"Let a child be born within the walls of a church, this does not make him a church member."
There are documents in the congressional record where the framers translated naturels to natural born. They are posted in previous threads on this subject.
This translation is the key.
[June 28, 2004] Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
Petitioner, a presumed American citizen...
Interesting that they chose the word “presumed citizen” as if they have doubts as to his claim to UD citizenship as he was born in the US to aliens and was raised in a foreign country, thus there is still doubt that accidental birth on US soil automatically makes one a constitutional US citizen.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/507/case.html
Edwin Meese III along with John C. Eastman entered the following Amicus Brief on behalf of Rumsfeld:
1. Whether the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment requires (as opposed to merely permits)
treating as citizens individuals born to foreign nationals
who were temporarily visiting the United States at the
time of the individual’s birth?
2. Whether the clear intent of the framers who adopted and
the people who ratified the “subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” phrase of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution should prevail in, or at least
guide, the interpretation the Citizenship Clause?
http://www.claremont.org/repository/doclib/hamdimeritsbrieffinal.pdf
A natural born citizen is not made by law. The 14th Amendment is a law.
You’re citing one of the interests that would fear the consequences of following original intent as far as certain means of attaining citizenship. The Heritage Foundation came out years ago, interpreting births on the soil regardless of parentage as not just citzens, but natural-born.
The resources available to us on FR are very hard-won, the product of two years of independent research, each of us springboarding off of and building upon the efforts of another. Conversely, that foundation has legal counsel at its disposal and therefore was not unfamiliar with that which took so much effort for us to acquire.
In other words, they knew then and chose to ignore what we’ve just begun to uncover, decipher and assemble into a cogent “case.”
The 14th Amendment was ratified to finally insure complete citizenship status for the freed slaves. You have to remember that they were counted as ‘citizens’ for representation purposes in Congress by the states, but were kept from all the rights of US citizenship. The 14th has nothing to do with naturalization, it was merely a formal law which finally defined who were the US citizens and the crux of the Amendment lies in the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ not in the phrase ‘born in the US’.
The 14th is NOT a naturalization law, it does not make one a citizen, that is done by A1 S8 C4 of the Constitution or by being born to citizen parent(S) or, if being born out of wedlock, born to an American mother. The 14th defines who is natural born and who is naturalized as there was no such thing as dual citizenship adopted and today, there is still no law on the books legalizing it. Since the revolution, there were the only 2 ways to gain citizenship, by natural law or by act of Congress and that is where the waters are still kept muddy. By those claiming that the 14th is a law that infers citizenship when it was only meant to define citizenship.
Their arguments even include what I'd to this point regarded as purely my own position regarding any claim of English common law being the basis for United States conceptualizations of citizenship, having been completely negated by the right of expatriation.
I'm going to have to dig back into things, to locate just what it was that the Heritage Foundation and Edwin Meese weighed in upon, that left me with not just a strong impression but the reasonable certainty that their position on "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment actually comported with that of Gray and WKA. Off the top of my head, I'm recalling that it was in dictionary form, but am not certain.
Have you ever considered posting this brief in it's entirety to FR? Somebody should. What was the ultimate disposition of the case, by the way?
No, it does not. It confers citizenship upon those former slaves born in the country who were being denied citizenship by certain States in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
I acknowledge that the question whether Hamdi’s executive detention is lawful is a question properly resolved by the Judicial Branch, though the question comes to the Court with the strongest presumptions in favor of the Government. The plurality agrees that Hamdi’s detention is lawful if he is an enemy combatant. But the question whether Hamdi is actually an enemy combatant is “of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.” That is, although it is appropriate for the Court to determine the judicial question whether the President has the asserted authority, we lack the information and expertise to question whether Hamdi is actually an enemy combatant, a question the resolution of which is committed to other branches.
I have to respectfully disagree, it does not say all black persons born, it say all persons as not to exclude the blacks. It was passed to put to rest the issue of race in regards to birth on the soil to citizen parents in accordance to the Declaration of Independence & Constitution. Slavery was not adopted by the Constitution, but instead left as a state issue. It took a civil war to completely abolish it. The framers of the Constitution were wise in their knowledge and in order to form the new Union under a federal constitution, they had to concede certain things for the moment, but did put in place a law that forbade the importing of new slaves. You could say that they paved the way for the civil war. By the time the 14th was ratified, all blacks held in slavery were born on US soil into slavery against which was not in compliance to the US Constitution. Thus, the 14th was passed to insure uniformity at the state level as there were blacks who were already citizens immediately after the revolution as well as blacks in Congress. However, Congress still held the power as to whom it allowed to naturalize aka the Chinese Exclusion Act, etc.
Framer Rep. John Bingham:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.”
Framers Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard:
"main purpose" of the clause "was to establish the citizenship of the negro" and that "[t]he phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Ratified 1868.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But from what little variation there is, it appears that you're reading a lot into that Amendment that isn't there. Former slaves could not have been born on US soil to citizen parents, otherwise the Amendment would not have been necessary and there would have been no slaves.
The 14th in no way dealt with natural-born citizens as a result of this historical fact. It did not and cannot reach back into a time prior to ratification of the Amendment to make citizens parents of those who were not. They became citizens after ratification.
Here is the link to the Congressional Record for June 14, 1967, concerning the eligibility of Governor George Romney, to be President.
It is stated on page 15880 that George Romney was NOT eligible because he was born in Mexico.
It states in the first column on page 15880 that “natural born” meant also “native born” or born in the US.
Pay particular attention to the paragraphs following “To summarize:” in the center column of page 15880 at the end of the article.
This is not a legal ruling, but it is legal research and opinion. I defer to you folks to study this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born-Citizen-Congressional-Record-6-14-1967-p-15875-80
“In the opinion of the court Ark was declared a native born citizen equal to that of natural born citizens.”
Patently false!
There exist only three types of citizenship in the statutes: native born; naturalized; and citizenship-by-statute. All three have equal rights.
Natural Born Citizenship exists ONLY in Article II of the U.S. Constitution as a requirement to be eligible for the Presidency.
A Natural Born Citizen is born in a nation of citizen parents. Chief Justice Marshal said it in 1814, and he was one of the Founders. Congressman John Bingham, who wrote the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, read the above definition into the Congressional Record in 1866.
No one has the ‘right’ to be President. So, there is no unfairness or discrimination concerned in this matter - it was written into the Constitution by our Founders to protect the United States from usurpers without allegience to our system of government.
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
From Beck's show on the black founders:
1768. Wentworth Cheswill, New Hampshire — elected to office in New Hampshire. He was re-elected for the next 49 years, held eight different political positions. A really cool story about him is we know that Paul Revere made his midnight ride. We also know he wasn't the only guy riding that night. The other guy riding, Wentworth Cheswill, black and white riding.
5 years after the passing of the 14th there were 6 black members of congress & one of them was “Speaker of the House”. Half of them were free citizens, such as Cheswill, prior to the ratification of the 14th & the other half had been held as slaves.
IOW, not ALL blacks were slaves prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and thus my holding that it did not emancipate the slaves, there was previous legislation for that. The 14th formally made the states recognize them as FREE US Citizens by formally defining US citizenship that was not subject to race, but to being born under the jurisdiction. Subject to the jusrisdiction is the KEY and we need to hammer it home.
The black causus of our current Congress & all their socialist followers don't want this information getting out and good luck finding it through a general search of the internet. According to them, black's didn't gain political respect until 5 years after the 14th was ratified. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“...Do not be taken in by attempts to conflate
native with natural-born when discussing the Presidency...”
-
Excellent post, thanks.
Gay= happy...carfree
Gay= Fag... queer..lesbian
Who says there will be riots and bloodshed if he is removed? The sheeple who voted for him are beginning to wake up and are very much sickened by their actions. I'd say there will be many more riots and much more bloodshed if our government continues to disregard the Constitution and allow our country to be turned into another Iraq.
Satin Doll, I do believe that there is actually only two types of citizenship.
1. Natural born : both parents U.S. Citizens
2. Naturalized: any citizen granted citizenship by statue( immigration law)
a. immigrants who have naturalized
b. native born to immigrants who are not yet citizens
c. native born to one parent who is a citizen and the
other a foreign national
Under the current laws obama would be a native born(assuming that he was born in Hawaii) naturalized citizen and ineligible to be President. obama knows this , that is the reason he is surpressing all his birth information.
If a person could get a CERTIFIED copy of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE into court he could be removed from office.
States made every determination of citizenship prior to the 14th, yes, I’ve written upon that topic numerous times in the past as well. The 14th specifies no “race” whatsoever, so the continued focus upon black people in the purely legal context is a diversion.
What was “undone” was permitting States to deny citizenship to those who were born here of parents subject to no foreign power and under the complete jurisdiction of the United States. Where you’re going astray is in presuming this to have declared former slaves, nearly all of whom were black, to be natural-born. That cannot be done by the very nature of the birth status. That is the source of my disagreement with your statement.
Another diversion is recognizing that there were indeed free citizens of the era who were in fact black. These individuals were ipso facto natural-born if they were born of citizen parents; they certainly could have been and many were, particularly in New Orleans. Many of these free black citizens themselves owned black slaves. The 14th Amendment had no effect upon those who were born citizens, just as it had no effect upon the lack of natural-born citizen status for those not born as such prior to ratification of the 14th. It cannot be retroactive. The Constitution forbids it.
Above and beyond the controversy ignited in certain quarters by acknowledging these historic facts, the meaning of the term natural-born citizen was not and is not affected.
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.