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 ...
The ironic thing is that the Birthers are the ones who really help Obama -- they make his opponents look silly by association, and they divert attention from the task of working within the political system to block his objectionable policies.
Right. That’s why Obama has such high approval ratings ... because so-called ‘birthers’ are helping Obama. Do you faithers never listen to yourselves??
“I wonder why that is?”
Because anecdotal evidence is functionally worthless in this situation?
Neither the French nor the English translation prior to 1797 would justify saying “Natural born citizen” is found in Vattel. It says, literally if one transliterates it, the “natives or indigenous”, not the “natural born citizen”.
Have you ever been tempted to refer to the natives of Hawaii as the NBC of Hawaii? Or call the Australian aborigines the NBC of Australia? Of course not.
Thus no rational person would believe the Founders used the “precisely analogous” term NBC because they found it in Vattel. Sorry, but if A comes AFTER B, A is not the inspiration for B. That is the way things work in the real world.
And that is why you are nuts.
I have also quotes at length from the Supreme Court, and then you deny the language says what it clearly says...so I conclude you cannot read English.
The Supreme Court says via repetition, “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
You say that doesn’t mean NBS and NBC are interchangeable, varying only in terms of the form of government.
You cannot read, so I cannot help you. You say they don’t use common law to determine the meaning of NBC when they spend pages doing precisely that. You are nuts.
The entire passage talks about persons naturally becoming citizens when they are born in the country. How would that NOT be equated with natural born citizen?? Your argument is astounding in its ignorance. Further, to be born a native, it still says you have to be born of parents who are citizens. This equates directly with the concept of natural born citizenship. Third, the 1797 translation obviously followed the common usage at the time of natural born citizen. Why would a translator suddenly pluck this term out of thin air unless it was in common use?? This is how dictionaries decide to add words ... because the words have become established within society. Sorry, but your argument is a three-time loser.
I have also quotes at length from the Supreme Court, and then you deny the language says what it clearly says...so I conclude you cannot read English.
None of the language you claim is so clear uses BOTH terms in a way you claim it does, so it's not my English-reading skills that are suspect, but yours.
A n00b with lips firmly planted on Barry the Bastard Boy’s backside, pretending to give a shiite about opposition to the Kenyan Kommie Klown’s agenda—which the democrap party fully supports and enables—fawning over obamanoid posters. Why is this not surprising? Must be an election cycle looming large ...
So do relevant passages of English constitutional law, which forms the basis for much of our own law.
There are a number of different birther arguments. Some believe it's the person's parents that determines natural-born status, while some believe anyone with dual-citizenship can't be a natural-born citizen. Neither are true, of course, but the latter is easily refuted by the argument you were responding to.
“Some believe it’s the person’s parents that determines natural-born status, while some believe anyone with dual-citizenship can’t be a natural-born citizen.” You parsed that so well, we would like to know whom wrote that for you, initially. You deny one thing on your own authority, and connect it to an ‘undistributed middle’ fallacy clause. Well done! Obamanoids will be proud.
Not true. One of the points of the 14th was to reverse the Dred Scott decision which said that blacks, slave or free, could never be citizens and had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
P*** off.
Muahahahahaha, pinhead obamanoid giving orders! Bwahahahahaha
The difference is that the Supreme Court didn't quote any other passage except for Vattel's to define natural born citizen.
Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Supreme Court: "... 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 ..."
Feel free to cite any passage on English constitutional law that is so precisely similar.
One would think that they’d give up on that fakery already. They’re bitterly clinging to it although it’s obviously untrue. More and more Americans are having grave doubts about his eligibility and it does concern them.
Bitter clingers! And they’re going to get a lot more bitter before all is said and done.
They’re losing their composure, it seems.
You can’t have delusions of grandeur when your opponent doesn’t even try to make a contrary point. Yet again you support my argument for me by saying, “It was a way to force members of Congress to go on record as to whether they were birthers or not.” You’re admitting here that democrats are focusing on place of birth and not Obama’s foreign national father. I get the feeling you don’t understand how a debate works. I’m glad to teach you whenever you can focus.
In his letter to President Obama, Lieutenant Colonel Lakin wrote: “Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and “natural born” status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate.”
Congratulations on all of your marvelous debating victories! Now if only a judge or a court of law would agree with any of your debating points, I’d be REALLY impressed! :-)
First, let’s define 6 different scenarios for acquiring citizenship:
1. Born in U.S. to 2 U.S. Citizens
2. Born in U.S. to 1 U.S. Citizen and 1 foreign Citizen
3. Born in U.S. to 2 foreign Citizens
4. Born overseas to two U.S. Citizens
5. Born overseas to 1 U.S. and 1 foreign Citizen
6. Naturalized Citizen
Article II defines 2 different types of citizenship:
a. Natural Born Citizen
b. Citizen of the United States
This eliminates Naturalized citizens (6), and citizens born overseas (4),(5). It also confirms that a “Citizen of the United States” born after 1787 is not eligible to become President. Pay close attention to this because it’s a very important legal term in the Constitution. Looking at Amendment XIV, we see a clarification of what a "Citizen of the United States" is:
a. Someone who is born under the Jurisdiction of the U.S.
b. Someone who is naturalized
We know immediately from this that "Citizen of the United States" is not a "Natural Born Citizen" because of the "OR" clause in Amendment XIV. Anyone requiring citizenship via Amendment XIV is ineligible for the presidency because we know naturalized citizens and Amendment XIV citizens are both "Citizens of the United States". We also know that Article II clearly states that a “Citizen of the United States” is not qualified if he or she is born after 1787.
So, now we know that anyone who gains citizenship via Amendment XIV is not eligible to become President. Rather convenient considering the freed slaves were not eligible, nor ever would be, don’t you think?
The next question arises. When does Amendment XIV apply to those born in the U.S.? The answer to eligibility boils down to the Amendment itself by asking a simple question:
Were you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at your time of your birth?
There are three answers to this:
1. Yes (100%) – Born to 2 U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil
2. Maybe (50%) – Born to 1 U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil
3. Maybe (10%) – Born to Foreign Citizens on U.S. soil
In the case of (1), Amendment XIV is not needed and does not apply. In the case of (2) and (3), Amendment XIV is needed and does apply.
The answer is clear. Amendment XIV children (those who have to use it to gain citizenship) are Citizens of the United States as stated in the U.S. Constitution and therefore will never be qualified to be President of the United States.
It seems like the group here is going around in circles when the definition of Natural Born Citizen can be found using deductive reasoning and legal terms in the Constitution itself.
First, let’s define 6 different scenarios for acquiring citizenship:
1. Born in U.S. to 2 U.S. Citizens
2. Born in U.S. to 1 U.S. Citizen and 1 foreign Citizen
3. Born in U.S. to 2 foreign Citizens
4. Born overseas to two U.S. Citizens
5. Born overseas to 1 U.S. and 1 foreign Citizen
6. Naturalized Citizen
Article II defines 2 different types of citizenship:
a. Natural Born Citizen
b. Citizen of the United States
This eliminates Naturalized citizens (6), and citizens born overseas (4),(5). It also confirms that a “Citizen of the United States” born after 1787 is not eligible to become President. Pay close attention to this because it’s a very important legal term in the Constitution. Looking at Amendment XIV, we see a clarification of what a “Citizen of the United States” is:
a. Someone who is born under the Jurisdiction of the U.S.
b. Someone who is naturalized
We know immediately from this that “Citizen of the United States” is not a “Natural Born Citizen” because of the “OR” clause in Amendment XIV. Anyone requiring citizenship via Amendment XIV is ineligible for the presidency because we know naturalized citizens and Amendment XIV citizens are both “Citizens of the United States”. We also know that Article II clearly states that a “Citizen of the United States” is not qualified if he or she is born after 1787.
So, now we know that anyone who gains citizenship via Amendment XIV is not eligible to become President. Rather convenient considering the freed slaves were not eligible, nor ever would be, don’t you think?
The next question arises. When does Amendment XIV apply to those born in the U.S.? The answer to eligibility boils down to the Amendment itself by asking a simple question:
Were you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at your time of your birth?
There are three answers to this:
1. Yes (100%) – Born to 2 U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil
2. Maybe (50%) – Born to 1 U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil
3. Maybe (10%) – Born to Foreign Citizens on U.S. soil
In the case of (1), Amendment XIV is not needed and does not apply. In the case of (2) and (3), Amendment XIV is needed and does apply.
The answer is clear. Amendment XIV children (those who have to use it to gain citizenship) are Citizens of the United States as stated in the U.S. Constitution and therefore will never be qualified to be President of the United States.
In “Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS” (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his opinion is that natural born citizenship is based [only] on “jus soli” (birth in the United States).
Here is the relevant section from the transcript from oral arguments:
Justice Scalia: … “I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.”
Plaintiff’s attorney [Ms.] Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires “jus soli” doesn’t it?
A foreign tourist or illegal alien in the United States is still “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that’s why our prisons hold so many foreigners who committed crimes in the US and that’s how we can catch and deport illegal aliens who are subject to the jurisdiction of our immigration and border control laws.
In which case, DU and Daily Kos would be getting themselves worked up into a frenzy about how McCain isn't an NBC, filing lawsuits, quoting sources that they think agree with them, etc.
And they would be rightly mocked here on FR.
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.