Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judge's October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a "frivolous" litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Taitz sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz's second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I’d gesture the FEDS are captives to this ADMIN, and; the Department heads in DC know this nation is flat broke from all the CRA overload,add Fannie and Freddie, add Obama’s SCHIP, Obamacare, bailouts, etc. We cannot keep paying unemployment.These SEIU and all union SOB’s have driven every real job out of this country.These Fed agencies from ICE to treasury, to you name it are worried about us finding out the truth and taking this country back.Why did Zero want a civilian Army as strong as the military? THINK.
When George Romney ran for President, there was a legal research article read into the Congretional Record. Romney was born in Mexico, and as such was not eligible, but he lost primaries and dropped out, before it became a crisis.
The article also said natural-born was the same as native born.
A legal research article is NOT a legal ruling. It is however the basis for a legal ruling.
No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Aug 4 2010 Application (10A56) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Aug 10 2010 Application (10A56) referred to the Court.
Aug 16 2010 Application (10A56) denied by the Court.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10a56.htm
Sometimes it pays to get one’s information from “the horse’s mouth.”
Brilliant.
These honorable men, proven patriots, considered Orly’s case, and using the Constitution and original intent, ruled against her. Even better, these Conservative judges respected judicial restraint.
What’s not to love?
It does, however, admit that the definition can be expanded.
Post them -- if you wish.
Let's do the whole paragraph:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Okay, so first sentence, the court says that the definition of natural-born citizens isn't in the Constitution, so you have to look elsewhere. It goes on to say that people born here, of two citizen parents, definitely qualify as NBC, no question. Then he says, "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." Since we're talking about the definition of "natural born citizen" (see first line of passage), clearly the court is admitting that some authorities accept children born here of non-citizen parents in that definition. Since that situation doesn't apply here, though, they aren't going to deal with it.
You're trying to argue the "citizen at birth" doesn't equal "natural born citizen" argument, but it just doesn't hold water. There are two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized, and your attempt to create more classes of citizenship is simply wrong.
Your hypothetical completely ignores the political process.
Do you think a candidate with the last name of Bush has a chance of getting elected to any office in this political climate? Clearly they would be eligible.
Do you think a candidate with the last name of Bin Laden would have a little difficulty getting party support and/or votes...even from the Dems?
Do you think a candidate with the last name of Hitler might have difficulty winning any Jewish support?...or for that matter, human support?
Charles Manson's son is eligible...what's gonna stop him?
On the other hand, in a couple of generations, a direct descendant of Stalin, born of "American" parents would be eligible to be the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.
The point is that eligibility is an important issue, but a thorough political vetting process is what will filter out the undesirable candidates.
No.
I axed you, if the offspring of foreigners were eligible for NBC status/POTUS.
If you believe FOREIGN parents make you eligible for POTUS, then you believe in the RIGHT of the likes of a child of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, of even Bin Laden to be POTUS.
You would have foreign rulers govern us like a colony again!
Anyone here want to be ruled by the child of a FOREIGN nation?
Too bad, it's already happening NOW!
Exactly, and we didn't even get that with this spawn of satan sitting in the white house.
Here are the facts, since you are incapable of following a link. Of course, like your hero Taitz, you are also incapable of legal reasoning, or any reasoning that doesn’t involve black helicopters and alien spaceships...so reading an argument that stretches thru multiple paragraphs is probably too much.
We need to come up with the crayon version of WKA, but here is the version for adults:
I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring 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,
also declares that
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.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
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. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
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. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
124 U.S. 478.
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.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.
In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:
The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which
the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,
he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.
Cockburn on Nationality, 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “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 afterwards 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 [p658] 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.
And he adds:
The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Read post 189 to see what the Supreme Court has already said.
You will see that the children of aliens, if born in the US, are natural born citizens - according to the Supreme Court. And here is what that radial leftist Ed Meese (the 75th Attorney General of the United States...1985-1988) wrote, pre-Obama:
“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...”
Or would you prefer Black’s Law Dictionary from 1999 - pre-Obama:
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.”
You asked a vague question, refused to clarify and then chose to insult me when I made a good faith effort at a response?
That is unfortunate.
Sadly this is the level of discourse I have come to expect from most (but not all) birthers.
If you believe Barry eligible, they you believe in foreign rule by proxy.
We all know it. You may as well admit it.
I remember when Romney ran for President and I was taught in school at the time that he could never be President because he was born abroad.
Wikipedia has an explicit blurb on this:
ELIGIBILITY
"While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of US citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is inconclusive whether Romney was eligible for the office of President."
Lowell Weicker of Connecticut was born in Paris, France to American parents, and also ran for President in 1996. Among articles currently available on the Web, I was not able to find controversy surrounding Weicker's eligibility.
Anyone who quotes from Vattel can do great things.
What about "citizen?" The Constitution itself mentions two types of citizen. A Natural born citizen....and a citizen. It does not mention a "naturalized" citizen as those laws were not yet passed by Congress. An anchor baby, having the possibility of 3 citizenships (or nationalities) at birth is clearly not a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., nor are they naturalized. The corrupt legal system is currently granting them "citizenship."
Seriously? No...really, is that a serious question?
Are you suggesting that since she got her degree in “some cheesy online program” that passing the State of California Bar exam is easy...not to mention in addition to the State of California boards for Dentistry?
Not quite. They're saying they can't use a definition which has doubt because they would have to to try to solve that doubt and justify the defintion. Why do that when you have a definition for which there is no doubt?? By saying they definition is not in the Constitution, they are also making a statement that the 14th amendment does not define what it means to be a natural born citizen.
Not to mention, that the primary architect of the 14th Amendement CLEARLY understood who a "Natural Born Citizen" was:
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [Edit: Plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
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.