Posted on 11/05/2010 10:19:53 PM PDT by chatter4
With all the talk of many conservatives hoping that Mark Rubio could one day run for President, I have a few questions. From the information available on the Web, It is said that Mark Rubio's parents were here in exile from Cuba. That would imply that they had hopes of returning there one day. Did his parents ever become US citizens? Did they become US citizens prior to Mark's birth?
“If Obama doesn’t have a Valid US birth certificate, then all your talk is moot.”
The Obama supporters use the birth certificate issue, valid though it may very well be, as a misleading argument or red herring to avoid public notice of the obvious natural born issue. Obama may have a real birth certificate. Obama may have two or three real birth certificates. He could have one birth certificate issued from his actual birth at the Coastline hospital in Mombasa, Kenya; another birth certificate issued by Canada from his mother’s filing for the child claiming birth of a British Commonwealth citizen overseas in a British Commonwealth state; and a Hawaiian birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii from a birth registration form filed by Madelyn Dunham to falsely report a child born to Hawaiian citizen and/or resident parents while outside of Hawaii.
According to the divorce papers filed by Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, Barack Hussein Obama I married her in a Muslim wedding ceremony on Maui at the beginning of 1961, about two months into her pregnancy. It is reported that her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham received an angry letter from the father of barack Hussein Obama I complaining about Stanley Ann’s marriage to his son corrupting his family’s bloodline. Barack Hussein Obama I already had a wife and child/children in Kenya, and the elder Obama was adamant that the Dunham girl was not going to be accepted into the Obama family.
Witnesses and records indicate the couple did not live together, despite the marriage reported in the divorce papers. Barack Hussein Obama I had an apartment just off of the university campus, and Stanlye Ann appears to have lived with her parents at least until about March 1961. After that date, her exact whereabouts become uncertain until she returns to view in Seattle, Washington at the end of August 1961 along with her newborn child.
It is reported by one or more of Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama’) friends that she wanted to persuade the Obama family to accept her and her child as Barack Hussein Obama’s second wife. According to reports of conversations with Stanley Ann’s friends and the Obama family in Kenya, Stanley Ann traveled to Kenya for the purpose of persuading her husband’s father to accept her into the Obama family before the birth of her child.
barack Hussein Obama I returned to school in the United States in the Fall of 1961 without his wife and newborn child. Members of the Obama family are reported to have been present at the birth of her child at the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya in early August, 1961. She evidently failed to persuade the Obama family or the father of her child to accept her and the child, because she finally comes back into the public records in Seattle, Washington with her newborn baby. She and the baby do not live with Barack Hussein Obama I at any time from this event at the end of August 1961 to the subsequent divorce.
The existence of a birth certificate issued in Kenya has been rreported and is quite possible.
There are unsubstantiated reports of a Canadian birth certificate. If one does exist, it could be explained as a document issued upon application as an unverified birth of a child in a British Commonwealth citizen at an overseas location. Stanley could have sought such a document to make it easier to take her newborn child through U.S. customs at some place like Blaine, Washington while enroute to Seattle, Washington. Canadian citizens, especially a newborn child accompanied by a U.S. citizen mother can cross the U.S. border without a visa, whereas a non-Canadian baby would be required to have a U.S. issued visa to do so. Having a Canadian birth certificate issued for the child would have made it a quick and simple means of taking her foreign born and foreign citizen child into the United States.
Obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate would have been one of the esiest steps to take. Madelyn Dunham was already accustomed to working with legal documentation. It would have been a simple task for to pick up a birth registration form at the Department of Health and fill it out as a family member on behalf of her daughter to report the birth of her daughter’s child while they were overseas.
Hawaiian law permitted such birth registrations, if both of the parents were citizens and/or residents of Hawaii for the required period of time. Whoever filled out the birth registration form had to lie and falsify that information to satisfy the citizenship and residency requirement, but Hawaii did not verify such information. instead, such a birth certificate was issued with information indicating the reported birth is unverified by the State of Hawaii. This would explain why the original birth certificate is being withheld from a public disclosure which would make its falsified information and falsified citizenship immediately apparent.
If, however, Stanley Ann gave birth to her child in the State of Washington, her child could have been born with native born U.S. citizenship, without natural born citizenship, and have a falsified Hawaiian birth certificate. But, someone would have to explain why there is no birth certificate on file for her child in the State of Washington or elsewhere in the United States.
In the end, however, no matter how many valid or falsified birth certificates may exist for Barack Hussein Obama II, he was born with British citizenship because his fathr was a British citizen. The Founding Fathers put the natural born citizen qualification into the U.S. Constitution for the express purpose of denying anyone born with British citizenship after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution any eligibility to the Office of the President. it makes no difference whasoever whether Obama does have a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, because he is not anatural born citizen with or without the Hawaiian birth certificate.
That is very true. The 14th Amendment reads...
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.
If 'jurisdiction' simply meant what legal authority a person's physical presence was under the "and" would be left out. If they had wanted to emphasize the importance of geographical 'jurisdiction' "thus" would have been placed where "and" is. "and" indicates an additional condition to the previous statement which already addressed the physical location (and therefore the local 'jurisdiction' of law.)
What it indicates by the way it is written is the potential that someone born on U.S. soil might be subject to a sovereign jurisdiction, apart from the geographical legal jurisdiction, other than the U.S. and the state they reside in. It makes no distinctions about particular circumstances such as being the child of a diplomat. Diplomats and their children are covered under separate U.S. statute law which clarifies that they are set apart from the general language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The words are very specific and the 14th Amendment was not written like a stream-of-consciousness monologue. The word "and" and the commas that separate the clause ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," indicate an entirely different condition than being subject to the laws where you happen to physically be which was addressed in the previous language of the amendment.
“OK, show me in the Constitution where it says you must have two US citizen parents. Go ahead, I’ll wait here for you to copy and paste the paragraph for all of us to see.”
Constitution of the United States
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Senate Document No. 108-17
2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002
Article 2 – Executive Department, Section 1 – The President, Clause 5 – Qualifications. 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[....]
Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . .shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’ 102 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 103 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 104
Thank you for proving what I just said. The only time you are required to have citizen parents is if you are born outside the US. It says NOTHING about someone born in the US of LEGAL immigrants who are not citizens. As long as they are under the jurisdiction of the US (i.e. LEGAL)
“What is with all of your stuff about foreign and international law?”
U.S. law was derived from pre-existing legal codes, and courts consult these prior legal codes to interpret the origins and intent of subsequent U.S. statutes and customary laws.
“Netherlands, Switzerland as basis for US legal system? To be used to determine the elibibility of a candidate for office in 2008?”
You wouldn’t need to ask such questions if you were knowledgeable about the origins of the United States of America, the colonial compacts, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution.
The States General of the Netherlands was one of the inspirations and sources of natural law philosphy upon which the American Revolution and the United States of America were founded.
French was the 18th Century international language of diplomacy and law founded upon earlier principles of Roman law and customary law.
Emmerich de Vatel was an 18th Century Swiss jurist and author of the Law of Nations which served as a standard reference for many judiciaries around the 18th Century world in much the same manner as Blackstone’s Commentaries were used in Britain and Black’s Law Dictionary is used by the today’s U.S. judiciary. The Foundidng Fathers relied upon Vatel’s Law of Nations and Blacksone’s Commentaries as standard references for defining the state of international and national law as they drafted the U.S. Constitution.
“You are trying to cite the ‘laws’ of ancient royalty to define the eligibility for modern, elected civilian office, in our constitutional republic.”
No, that is a completely false argument. For just one example, The Netherlands was a republic having no monarch at the time in which its republican laws were used as inspiration for the development of an American democratic and republican form of government. The Founding Fathers used the then existing law of nations to determine the meaning of the natural born citizen terminology already well known to those drafting the Constitution. In particular, the Founding Fathers were quite explicit about terminating the British precedents for determining allegiance by birth on British soil and adopting the principle of expatriation in direct repudiation of British Common Law precedents perpetually forbidding any expatriation of british citizenship.
“Either the Constitution defines “Natural Born” differently than “Native Born” or it doesn’t.”
The Constitution defines natural born citizenship by reference to the law of nations throughout the Constitutional Convention, with one such example appearing by reference in Artcle 1, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10. The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.
The standard reference work used to interpret the law of nations at the time of the Constitutional Convention was Emmerich de Vatel, Law of Nations, Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Paragraph 215, “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say ‘of itself,’ for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
“Period. If it doesn’t, it will be up to the USSC to decide, and I believe it would rule as does the article in the Congressional Record.”
Previous Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions have touched on the meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution, but efforts to disavow and misconstrue those decisions to deny John Jay’s and the other Founding Father’s intent to exclude qualification to persons not having two U.S. citizen parents continues. In the present instance with regard to the the alias Barack Hussein Obama, SCOTUS is claiming that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the case or render a decision because it is claimed no plaintiff can have so-called standing to undertake such a lawsuit and complaint. SCOTUS has so far said it is up to the Congress and the People to make the decision on eligibillity. Until this circumstance changes, it is up to the Citizens of the United States to enforce the natural born citizen phrase in the Qualifications clause by holding their U.S. Congressmen and Senators accountable for the eligibility issue.
“Natural Born = Native Born.”
Repetition of a fallacy does not change its fallacy, anymore than you can spend your way out of debt. Believing otherwise is generally regarded as cognitive dissonance, to put it politely.
“Obama and Rubio can by President, that way; but not George Romney.”
In your Dreams and Obama’s ghostwritten Dreams of My Father, but not in the real world.
“Thank you for proving what I just said. The only time you are required to have citizen parents is if you are born outside the US. It says NOTHING about someone born in the US of LEGAL immigrants who are not citizens. As long as they are under the jurisdiction of the US (i.e. LEGAL)”
Wrong.
Emmerich de Vatel, Law of Nations, Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Paragraph 215, “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say ‘of itself,’ for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
The U.S. Constitution incorporated Vatel’s definition of natural born citizen by reference with the natural born citizen phrase defined in Vatel’s Law of Nations and international practices in various national statutes in Europe.
So you and Justice Kennedy put foreign law above the US Constitution?
The framers changed the requirement for Commander in Chief of the armed forces from "Citizen" originally, to that of a "Natural Born Citizen" (post grandfather clause) because they wanted the CinC to have undivided allegience (from birth) to the country. It was a matter of national security.
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
If a child is born in the country, they are native born per the 14th Amendment (which says who may be a "citizen" but mentions nothing about who may be a "natural born citizen" - see Binghams remarks). However, that child may also be born with, by birthright, up to 2 other foreign citizenships. One from the father and one from the mother if they were from different countries. A Natural Born Citizen can not, naturally, have multiple citizenships at birth.
U.S. law is our own...however, it was built from other's as well as some of the founders own ideas.
That’s fine, but you don’t use foreign sources to try to prove a point about the US Constitution. It does NOT say anything about requiring two US citizens in order to be a citizen if you are born in the US. Only if you are born in a foreign country of US parents. Rubio is a citizen.
“So you and Justice Kennedy put foreign law above the US Constitution?”
No, you are misrepresenting the information. The Founding Fathers incorporated certain aspects of pre-existing law by reference to pre-existing principles and definitions of law. To change the meaning of the natural born citizen phrase as used by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution is supposed to require an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that explicitly defines a natural born citizen differently than was used by John Jay in his letter to George Washington and differently than was defined in the Law of Nations by Vatel and incorporated into the U.S. Constitution by reference to that terminology known to all 18th Century jurists consulting the standard international law reference by Vatel on the subject.
Remember that Vatel in turn relied upon earlier works on international law written in Latin by Wolff and Hugo Grotius to produce his own french vernacular work on the subject.
Britain’s common law practice of proscribing expatriation was contrary to the law of nations practiced by most other nations, yet Britain too recognized the international principle of jus sanguinnis at least with respect to the foreign born children of British citizens. This is why the concept of having two citizen parents to confer citizenship by jus sanguinnis was already a well known and uncontroversial concept for the Founding Fathers accustomed to dealing with the conflicting laws between Britain and the Continent on such matters.
The colonies had a disparate system of naturalization laws reflecting the former British, Dutch, French, Swedish, and Spanish origins of the American communities which became the United States of America. While the naturalization laws have subsequently been superceded in the mid-19th Century by a uniform naturalization law under the Federal government, no U.S. Constitutional amendment has succeeded in being enacted by the U.S. Congress to alter the original meaning of the natural born citizen phrase as first written by the Founding fathers and their original intent. Attempts to do so have been made by the Democrat Party as recently as the past ten years and immediately prior to Obama’s campaign for the Presidency. All such efforts to amend the Constitution failed, so the Democrat Party simply ignored the Constitution and defied the Citizens of the United States to try enforcing the natural born citizen phrase in the U.S. Constitution. With the help of many U.S. citizens, the MSM, and Congress, the Democrats have been successful in defying the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers, so far.
Nonetheless, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he was very explicit about asking his fellow Founding Fathers to use the natural born citizen phrase to disqualify anyone born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign such as the British monarch from eligibillity to the Office of the Supreme court and command of the American Army.
Very interesting but what on earth does that have to do with what we are talking about? You keep floating red herrings that have nothing to do with the facts in question.
The Founders used foreign sources to help them draft the Constitution..they used foreign sources to start their revolution..they used foreign sources..to give them the idea to join the 13 states into a nation.
“That’s fine, but you don’t use foreign sources to try to prove a point about the US Constitution. It does NOT say anything about requiring two US citizens in order to be a citizen if you are born in the US. Only if you are born in a foreign country of US parents. Rubio is a citizen.”
The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution all used foreign sources of law as the basis for our subsequent development of those documents and the original laws of the Federal and state governments. We innovated new developments afterwards, but the original laws in the wake of independence originated with the foreign sources of law and legal philosophies. The U.S. Constitution was authored by the Founding Fathers using Blackstone’s Commentaries and Vatel’s Law of Nations at the Constitutional Convention. Denying the fact and making believe foreign law and foreign legal principles were not incorporated into the writing of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and U.S. Constitution is totally erroneous and quite irrational. Doing so denies the very essence of the American Revolution and its political philosophy.
Rubio’s election victory is a great victory for conservatism and Constitutional law. So far as I know, Rubio may or may not be eligible to the Office of the President by virtue of his parents both being U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. It would be hypocritical for conservatives to also violate the U.S. Constitution by making someone who is not a natural born citizen a candidate for the Office of the President regardless of their parents’ prior citizenship. Yes, Rubio is undoubtedly a native born U.S. citizen, and it would be to his benefit if he was also a natural born citizen as well by virtue of having two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth..
“Very interesting but what on earth does that have to do with what we are talking about? You keep floating red herrings that have nothing to do with the facts in question.”
That’s funny. We though that was what you are doing.
Do you even care what the Constitution had to say on the subject of natural born citizens?
I'll give you something easier. Why don't you prove that Marco's parents weren't citizen when he was born. Are you sure they were not? They were Cuban exiles and most exiles were granted citizenship. So, let's see your proof that they were not.
“Yep, I keep asking for proof that it says both parents must be US citizens if someone is born in the US and you keep saying “Oh look at this shiny object I found” and it has NOTHING to do with this thread.”
“I’ll give you something easier. Why don’t you prove that Marco’s parents weren’t citizen when he was born. Are you sure they were not? They were Cuban exiles and most exiles were granted citizenship. So, let’s see your proof that they were not.”
Just because you refuse or are incapable of understanding what you are reading does not indicate the natural born citizen phrase does not mean what John Jay intended for it to mean or what Vatel’s Law of Nations says that it means. I have no idea whatsoever what the citizenship of Rubio’s parents were at the time of his birth, and I have no reason to ask and intrude upon their privacy until and unless Rubio should ever campaign for the Office of the President.
Perhaps you would care to propose a reason why the Democrats tried and failed these recent years to amend the U.S. Constitution to permit a person not having two U.S. citizens at birth to be eligible for President? The Democrats had to already know a person having less than two U.S. citizen parents were not natural born citizens eligible to the Office of the President, otherwise there would have been no reason for them to attempt to enact such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you, samantha. I think the author called him 'Mark' on purpose, though. Really tacky, imo.
” I keep asking for proof that it says both parents must be US citizens if someone is born in the US..”
The 14th Amendment states, “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.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Section 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401), also states, “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;”
So twice we have seen it stated that birth within the United States alone does not meet the requirement for citizenship, but, one must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The only way that can be determined is by the citizenship held by a child’s parents.
Just as a US citizen can claim their foreign born child to be a US citizen, Citizens of foreign nations can claim citizenship for their children that are born here.
Sen. John Bingham, the man recognized as being the father of the 14th Amendment, had this to say on the subject of the jurisdiction clause: ”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.”
“That’s fine, but you don’t use foreign sources to try to prove a point about the US Constitution”
“In order be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN”
... “for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY.”
Here is a letter from Franklin that outlins the high regard in whech Vattel was held, as follows:
Ben Franklin:
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of VATTEL. It came to us in good season when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary FREQUENTLY to CONSULT the LAW OF NATIONS. Accordingly, that copy which I KEPT, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been CONTINUALLY in the HAND of the MEMBERS of our CONGRESS, now sitting, who are much PLEASED with your notes and preface, and have ENTERTAINED a HIGH and JUST ESTEEM for their author”
(Emphases mine)
You might also find this of interest, as follows:
George Washington’s library book returned, 221 years later
Book on international affairs that first US president borrowed in 1789 finally replaced.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/may/20/george-washington-library-book
STE=Q
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.