Citizens and Natural Born are different meanings.
Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.
The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.
In French.
ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.
The Founders Translation.
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.
See post 19.
Yes!
It doesn’t matter if I like it or not, or you like it or not, the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Code, the precendent set by the Ark case, all say
YES!!!
The law is crystal clear. And unlike the accusation put forward, this question has been raised before and in each case has been consistent.
If you are born in the United States, and you are subject to the laws of the United States, you ARE a natural born citizen.
Citizens and Natural Born are different meanings.
U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
According to Vattel. But not according to the Constitution, the U.S. Code, and court precedent.
And the Constitution says what is the supreme law of the land?
You're right. What you think doesn't matter. What matters is what the old white guys said. And they had discussions, the text of which have been posted on FR. They worried about divided loyalty. So they put into the requirements a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. You should read some history.
the precendent set by the Ark case
Talking points again. That case had NOTHING to do with Presidential qualifications.
“The Snyder Act closed the ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ loophole concerning Indians born on reservations or other native ruled territories that were semi-autonomous.”
So, to you, a portion of the 14th Amendment was a “loophole” where as I belief it was INTENTIONALLY written to exclude people who are not ONLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States!
If you read the writings and arguments concerning this Amendment, during discussions it was brought up that illegals and Indians would NOT be given citizenship with this amendment!
You see, you and so many other nitwit liberals decided to close a “loophole” which was specifically written to exclude people who do not have complete allegiance and are solely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Wrong. The 14th Amendment was naturalization at birth. I'll even cite the case where they have an erroneous holding Ankeny v. Indiana BUT where the Indiana Appeals Court admitted that the 14th Amendment was about naturalization, which did and does NOT make people or former slaves natural born citizens.
From the infamous Note 14 of Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana:
-snip-
For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
-end snip-
I could cite you where the Supreme Court also says who are 14th Amendment citizens at birth - and are not natural born citizens. Obama is not a natural born citizen any way you look at it.
So, osama could pop a kid here, go raise him in a cave, send him back to this Country to become POTUS...is that what you think The Founders had in mind with the NBC Clause?????.......please tell me your line of reasoning..........dude, waiting......can't wait......
Have you read the case decision? It most definately does have to do with what we are discussing here in terms of Presidential qualifications:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘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,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every 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.
The Founders clearly made a difference between Citizens and Natural Born. It is in the Congressional Records. The meaning of the term natural born has been located and it means born to citizen parents.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29
Did the courts locate this document and the Founders understanding that naturels means natural born..not natural as it is translated today.
If you had read the many research threads on this topic, you would not post such ill-informed opions. That is, if your mind is open to knowing what the founders meant by Natural Born Citizen; a qualification that only the President (and obviously VP) need to have; unlike all other political positions.
bushpilot1 and many others have done incredible detective work; you should look into it.
The Constitution was amended in 1868 to include a very specific sentence. Was Madison consulted on this amendment? No, he had died by then. So those who wrote it, changed the Constitution in their own time and for their own reasons. They changed it in part to read:
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.
Around 1870, a baby (Wong Kim Ark) was born to two Chinese citizen parents in San Fransisco. He left as a child and wanted to return from China to the United States later, but the United States had enacted a law prohibiting the immigration of Chinese citizens. His case went to the Supreme Court where they found that since he was born here, he was a natural born citizen and could thus move back.
The dissenting Justices in this case used the same Vattel style arguments. But the Supreme Court found in Ark's favor.
This is my line of reasoning: The Constitution was modified to allow this rule of citizenship by place of birth. The law has been clearly codified by Congressional action. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation.
Now if you don't like it, you have every right to attempt to amend the Constitution. I would even vote for it.
I can understand why leftists’ minds are shut tight to the truth; or they know he ain’t a NBC but just don’t care.
But why people who supposedly consider themselves conservatives don’t want to know the truth is what boggles my mind.
In my experience Freepers who think “this will go nowhere” just don’t bother to post on these threads. They spend their valuable time fighting in other areas, not fighting those trying to get the truth out about 0thugga’s eligibility or research it.
Nothing like fighting against those trying to get to the truth!
The Constitution is clear.
The U.S. Code is clear.
The Supreme Court ruling as precendent are clear.
One thing that is consistantly ignored by those who claim Vattel as their authority is this little phrase in the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Vattel is no more the supreme law of the land than is the "seperation of Church and State" that Jefferson wrote about.
Total BS.
From Ankeny again:
"We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language..."
Because Wong Ark was not that's why.
As it says in quotes above, Justice Gray who wrote the Opinion never proclaimed him as a natural born citizen. He couldn't make that fly and neither can you.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and debunked on this forum. I am not discussing it for the 1,000th time. Let’s stick to the Constitution and the Founders intent and the records that they left.
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘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,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” ...snip... “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every 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. “
Please note that the ruling states, “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED in the Constitution.” And in both cases, it lists the circumstances which includes your “loophole” (as you like to call it) which reads, “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”!!!
You see, there was a reason for this portion and it did not only have to do with the legal jurisdiction! It had to do with allegiance as noted by the words of the author and those who argued the Amendment before it became law!
Just because you and others have decided to ignore the words and use your own “loophole” does not change what the intent of the law was and should be again!
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan used the exact same arguments in their dissent of the Ark case. Read their dissent in that case (http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html) and see if it doesn’t sound just like the arguments presented here.
And yet, they were overruled 7 to 2. Ark won his case, even with the arguments we have seen presented. This being a legal matter, legal precedent was set.
It’s not a personal fight for my part. It’s simply the very plain interpretation of the words written in the Constitution, the words written in the U.S. Code, and the findings of the Supreme Court in cases that are brought before it in interpretation of the Constitution and U.S. Code.
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.