Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk a conspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
No there isn't. I defy you to find a single piece of writing, be it an essay, book, column or even blog post, published before Nov. 2008, in which Chester Aurthur's status is questioned. I also defy you to find a single essy, book, column or even blog post published before Nov. 2008 that claims Obama is ineligible on the grounds that his father wasn't a US citizen.
Wong Kim Ark!?
Shame on you, Mr. Rogers! WKA never stated that native born equaled natural born. But I forgive you, for it can be confusing to read. Let me show you why.
You are definitely mistaken about Wong Kim Ark. But after looking at the wording Supreme Court Justice Gray used I can understand the confusion - he uses native born and natural born together.
The reason why is this: all people born in the U.S. are native born (with exceptions), but only those whose parents are U.S. citizens can be considered Natural Born Citizens AND native born. What makes it even more confusing is that NBC is not a form of citizenship, merely a circumstance of birth conveying eligibility for the Presidency per Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Please note the capitalized section in the fifth paragraph following:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens, subjects of the Emperor of China, whose sone claimed U.S. Citizenship by right of birth. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
“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.”
The above quote is often quoted to prove that the Wong Kim Ark case make native born and natural born the same status. IT DID NOT, because the following paragraph qualified it:
On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. under the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors, foreign armies, and foreign visitors, etc.) but it DID NOT EXTEND THE MEANING OF THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
In addition, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT a type of citizenship! It is but a circumstance of birth and the only place it appears in U.S. law is in the U.S. Constitution as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
We are citizens, Mr. Rogers, not subjects. We are, each of us, sovereigns of the United States of America. In no way, shape, or manner, are any of us subjects of the Federal Government. The Federal Government gets its power from us, the people.
We the people have inalienable rights from God. We willingly vote in representatives to govern in our name, and grant power to the government.
NOTE: people have rights; the government and individual states are granted power by the will of the people.
We are NOT SUBJECTS. I dare you to find that word, “subject”, in either the U.S. Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution!
I often cut off exchanges with such as you by wishing them a pleasant evening. In your case, I wish you nothing good. The world doesn't need liars/deceivers like you and your ilk.
Almost Zort. Dr. Ramsay in his Dissertation explains that the reason for the term “resident” in Article II is because when the Constitution was ratified, we had only had citizens for 12 years - 1776 to 1888. There may have been other reasons for the 14 year residency, but at the time of the signing, during two of those years, no nominee could have been a citizen - they were still British subjects. All this implies that citizenship began at the Declaration. Little stuff, but with all the misdirection being cast about by frantic trolls, facts can be refreshing.
The Ramsay Dissertation is fascinating, and only 8 short pages long. Ramsay begins by clearly disposing of any notion of an equivalence between subjects and citizens. It should still be here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Ramsay-Natural-Born-Citizen-1789
Non-Sequitur, along with James and Mr. Rogers are helping us to read more carefully by testing our ability to find their misdirection. Non-Sequiter is discussing natural born citizens, and then cites the phrase in Minor “Some authorities go further and include as citizens...” Someone not paying attention might have assumed Justice Waite was referring to natural born citizens, but Non-Sequitar wanted us to notice that Justice Waite was contrasting the certainty about who were natural born citizens with the doubts around who were citizens. The framers gave congress the authority to define citizens, but not natural born citizens, at least not without amending the Constitution.
MHGinTN, his or her response tells you he is upset. It is much harder to sustain lies than truth, but for whatever reason - I doubt that it's money - there are clearly those, many of them bright people, willing to lie for an end. Muslims I understand. We don't know that Mr. Rogers isn't Imman Rauf! Their Koran encourages lies to infidels, which we surely are. I have been tickled with Rush's Imam Obama. Perhaps we are dealing with Imam Rogers, Imam Non-Sequiter, Imam Curiosity?
This thread, to which I arrived late, is filled with good reasoning. Trolls are stimulating more and more clarity about our courts and Constitution, even if the original article by Leaventhal is a year old. Corsi probably figures that there has been so much the public couldn't correlate before, having the government confirm Obama's dual-citizenship status will fit the picture. As the Muslim bias is becoming more obvious, and the 'recovery' appears not to be doing quite as well as anticipated, we hear more and more asking "who is Obama really working for?" Its all about allegiance, which is why our framers added natural born citizenship to the job qualifications.
Barak Obama said in a debate, while running for the House of Representatives, that he was born in Kenya.
That debate has been scrubbed from the internet and the harddrive on which I had saved that debate was hacked, wiped clean, by someone working from a Senate Office building in April, 2008.
Socialists work on the principle that if you scrub your past, it can’t possibly exist.
As to Chester A. Arthur, his ineligibility was discovered by Leo Donofrio, just in the past two years.
Truth is the daughter of time.
LAUNCELOT [to Gobbo]
Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of
the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his
own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of
your son: give me your blessing: truth will come
to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son
may, but at the length truth will out.
Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act II, Scene II
We will have to agree to disagree, I suspect.
“The “at the time” clause is there because they were founding the United States. NOBODY was natural born. Pretty obvious. It’s got nothing to do with a definition of “natural born citizen”.”
Of course not at the time of the adoption of the Constitution! It is worded to roll the requirement in for later generations. Now if Obama was born before the adoption of the Constitution, he’d be kosher.
Thank you, I appreciated that.
I certainly do.
The definition he cited is the ONLY ONE without doubts.
But not the only one, as Justice Waite stated.
That’s why he used it.
He stated both. He used neither since the question of natural born citizenship was not relevant to the court's decision.
He would have to try to resolve doubts about any other definition, which he never said was possible, but there was no need because there is a definition for which there is no doubt.
Again, completely incorrect. Justice Waite did not say he could not resolve the doubts. He said, "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." The reason being was that Happersett was a voting rights case, not a citizenship case. Naturalized citizenship and natural born citizenship didn't enter into it. Justice Waite could have said only those born with citizen parents were natural born citizens, or he could have said that anyone born in the U.S. was natural born citizen and neither definition would have settled the question because both would have been made in dicta.
Who did they give that authority to, pray tell?
You are such a comedian!!!!
<>I’ve seen no reason to believe anyone reading the original French version (or English translations available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) would get “natural-born citizen” from Vattel’s Law of Nations.<>
Historian David Ramsay did, along with Vattel’s definition thereof in 1789:
And Justice Waite in his Minor v Happersett identified “natural-born citizen” as a synonym for “native”, along with Vattel’s definition therof, as derived from common law when he wrote:
“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.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Yes. We are citizens, not subjects, because citizen is a more appropriate description. Thus NB citizen rather than NB subject - as the Supreme Court said, the change was due to the change in the type of government, not because a change in the essential meaning.
If you have construed anything I wrote as meaning we are subjects of the federal government, then you are being intellectually dishonest. At no time have I ever suggested we are subjects of the federal government.
As for WKA: it is excruciatingly clear that they used a two prong argument, based on the meaning of NBC and then based on the 14th Amendment. They didn’t spend half of their argument showing WKA met the qualifications of NBS and thus NBC as a historical review, or to set up a new term of native citizen, which is really just another term used in the 1800s for someone born a citizen.
You don’t have to believe me. You can believe every court and every state and every member of Congress who has looked at it...or you can believe Internet posters who can’t convince a court to even look at their claims, let alone take them to a ruling.
Do as you wish, but there is a reason only 1 court has ever bothered to address birther claims while all the others tossed out the cases - and it isn’t because the black helicopters made them do so!
That doesn't cover people born to parents who had been born under the colonial regime. Either the Founders made an obvious boner, or the proposed definition of "natural-born citizen" is incorrectly narrow. I go with Door Number Two.
If "natural born citizen" required both parents to be born in the US, this clause would be insufficient, because it would not cover the generation of people born in the US to parents who themselves had been born under colonial rule. For example, Martin van Buren (born 1782), son of Abraham van Buren (born 1737) and Maria Hoes (van Alen) van Buren (born 1747) would be ineligible, as neither Abraham nor Maria were born in the US. I haven't been able to trace the birthdates of both parents of John Tyler (born 1790) or James K. Polk (born 1795), but they, too, were almost certainly born to parents who had not been born in the US.
Obviously, the Founders did not contemplate this definition of "natural born citizen".
That is a bold-faced lie.......and you know it..
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.