Posted on 11/08/2010 5:11:53 PM PST by RobinMasters
That’s because the Kenyan officials know his true origins and don’t have to worry about the Democrats and the MSM here so they can speak their mind unlike some weak kneed RINOS and public officials.
Bogus. That was a not-very-well-made splice job. Notice how often the scene jumps whenever he says certain key words.
Barry is going to sit on the long form for as long as he can. He loves the publicity this is getting him. And he’ll whip out the long form in the last week of October of 2012, with the birthplace of Honolulu printed on it. He’s going to milk the birther stuff for as long as he absolutely can, until it’s at saturation point.
Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829. The Fourteenth Amendment granted birthright citizenship to all those born in these United States, but it was passed in 1868. Obama was born in 1961. Once he produces the long form birth certificate with a U.S. birthplace on it, this is a dead issue. The argument that you must be the child of two U.S. citizen parents in order to claim natural born status is hogwash imo. Under that discredited argument, people like Bobby Jindal are ineligible to run for office.
On today’s show ?
I don't know about Dean, but as Speaker, I believe Pelosi certified his eligibility for the Electoral College on behalf of the House.
Which means that if some federal judge finally manages to look under the sofa and find standing for someone, somewhere, to be able to ask that the president of the United States show his birth certificate, and it ain't from the USA, then not only would the Muslim Kenyan go down - but Pelosi would go down with him. Into prison for fraud, yes, but probably for treason as well - for personally enabling the criminal takeover of one of the three Branches of federal government through the subversion of her position in Congress.
Talk about sweet.
That is your opinion but not the opinion of some previous Supreme Court Justices.
4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen” IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
I agree with O'Reilly on this, honestly. An announcement of Barry's birth was posted in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, August 13, 1961. I refuse to believe that this is a 49-year old conspiracy.
Fortunately for birthers, however, this is actually a two-part brouhaha, is it not? If it's proven that he was born Hawaii in 1961, then you still have the two citizen- parent requirement argument to fall back on, eh? Surely you'd concede that's a weaker argument than the birth location. It really hinges on the birthplace.
I'll address the two citizen parent requirement in the response to TigersEye.
If I was pushing the level of "hogwash" you are, I wouldn't give any historical interpretive citations, either. What possible effect could the 14th Amendment have of the definition of "natural born"? Your unbacked "argument" is a dead issue itself, discredited the moment you wrote it.
What you call "birthright citizenship" was well known to the founders, and it was at the time, and still is, distinguished from "natural born" citizenship by two specific issues: place of birth being the United States of America, and both parents being American citizens. "Natural born" is DESIGNED TO BE a special, very high level of citizenship reserved SOLELY for the presidency, and has always been acknowleged as such.
And yes, it means Jindal can't be president. It also means Schwarzenegger can't be president. At most, the 14th Amendment extended regular "citizenship" to the child of a single US parent, sometimes even when born in a foreign country (under certain circumstances). But that NEVER touched the special brith status required by th Constitution for the president.
Period.
His true origin is in agreement with the Kenyan officials by gut feeling of most Americans.
It doesn't matter what long-dead SCOTUS justices thought. What matters is what the present justices think, and they've declined cert in how many cases so far? Quote dead justices all you want, but if the present justices won't take the case, your argument doesn't really have much to it. It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case for it to be granted cert. Do you see that happening? We have four conservative justices on the court: Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. You don't even need Kennedy for cert to be granted.
As for the cases you mentioned, irrelevant. 14th amendment governs. Everyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen. And don't tell me about "subject to the jurisdiction". That was meant to apply to foreign diplomats, ambassadors and such. They have diplomatic immunity so their children are not automatically born here . They cannot be arrested unless their consulate waves their diplomatic immunity. Contrast this with an illegal immigrant. They jump the fence or swim across the river from Mexico and give birth in El Paso. The illegal immigrant is not a citizen. Their child, by virtue of the 14th amendment, is a citizen, and again, we only have two categories of citizenship in this nation: Birthright and naturalized. That child is a U.S. citizen by virtue of the fact that they were born in El Paso. Why do you think we have to pass a constitutional amendment to stop this practice? Because according to the 14th amendment, those born here are automatic citizens.
There aren't nine different categories of U.S. citizen no matter what you may think. There are two - naturalized and born. TWO. Naturalized and born. Which of these does Obama fall into? Here is where the argument starts to collapse. You can't sustain a two-part argument: in other words, you can't argue that he wasn't born in Hawaii; but wait, if he was, he's still not eligible because he wasn't born to two citizen parents. If Obama was born on U.S. soil then he is a natural-born citizen. If he was not born on U.S. soil then he is obviously ineligible for the office. That is the only distinction.
To address your main point, "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.' - Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 464. Excuse my crappy cites, I'm not a lawyer, and don't know how to do it correctly.
So the constitution uses those phrases, yes, but Wong Kim Ark goes on to say this: "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Amend. art. 14". Ibid.
You are either accidentally or deliberately distorting the meaning of the 14th amendment with your last paragraph. You don't need to have a U.S. citizen parent to get "regular" citizenship. Look at those individuals who cross the border and plop out kids in border states. Would you dispute that those children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens? It's pretty well established that they are. That's why THEY qualify for benefits of citizenship like food stamps while illegal immigrants without U.S. children don't. And these kids weren't born to at least one U.S. citizen parent, so...
Well, I don't know what you mean by "regular" citizenship although I have an idea. I guess by your logic, those individuals born to two U.S. citizens have a sort of super citizenship that qualifies them, and only them, to be president of the United States. Is that a fair characterization? And using your logic, Obama and Jindal lack this super citizenship requirement and are merely regular citizens, and are therefore ineligible to be president. That is definitely a minority view. Perhaps not on this website, but in legal circles, I would strongly suspect it is.
By the same token; neither does yours.
True, but I’m arguing against your argument. You have the burden of proof and if you can’t even get a hearing before SCOTUS, well... what does it say about the case when four rock-ribbed conservative justices refuse to hear it? Alito isn’t shy about standing up to Obama when he feels he’s wrong (see last year’s State of the Union address re Citizens United discussion), so there must be a reason he’s not listening to your arguments. Why do you think that is?
Oh, but I will. It has meaning even if it was written by some "dead guys."
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.
I never said there were nine, Mr. Alinsky. But there are three. Natural born, native born and naturalized.
Neither was John McCain. He was not born on a U.S. base either.
Child A is born to parents B and C in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in 1976. Parents B and C were also born in Myrtle Beach and have dual citizenship. Parent B is and was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel at the time o f A's birth. Parent C is and was a dual citizen of the United Staets and Canada at the time of A's birth. Is Child A eligible to be president? Parents B and C could have been subject to foreign and sovereign powers.
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.