Skip to comments.Jury Convicts Army 'Birther' Who Refused Deployment to Afghanistan
Posted on 12/15/2010 12:54:18 PM PST by OldDeckHand
click here to read article
The Child of Citizen parents (Naturalized, Native, or Natural Born)
Naturalized Citizens....Someone that chooses to become a Citizen through the naturalization process, an immigrant that has become a US citizen.
Native born Citizens....Someone that was born in this country to parents that were not citizens i.e. legal resident aliens not diplomatic staff or members of an invasion army .
Natural Born Citizens....Descendant of actual citizens (Naturalized, Native, or Natural Born)
“To expand on my post, Lakin has standing in civil court, but just having standing is not enough to bring suit.”
Too bad he couldn’t successfully sue Lind and the military prosecutor. Of course, that cannot happen.
You keep trying to find wiggle room in that, but there isn't any.
And I refer you again to the very next sentence in the paragraph where Madison declares, "Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." Place is the most CERTAIN criterion, but Madison does NOT say it is the ONLY criterion and he immediately acknowledges that one's ancestors establish a birthright. Also, you need to understand that this statement was made prior to the ratification of the Constitution, so he wasn't talking about the Constitutional term, 'natural born citizenship.' How else may I school you??
Read what you just posted. Madison declares “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright...” but Madison has already said “place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
To make it very plain: Mr. Smith is saying his birthright and ancestors support his claim. James Madison, “father of the constitution,” says his parentage is irrelevant as place is more certain, it is what applies in the US, and no other criterion need be investigated. If you can’t fathom what he wrote, I suggest a reading comprehension course.
You’re confusing the words ‘most certain’ with the word ‘only.’ Madison does not talk about Smith’s citizenship in this paragraph but principles of allegiance. Just because he says it’s unnecessary to investigate other criteria, doesn’t mean the other criteria are not relevant to allegiance. Third, he still acknowledges that ‘birthright’ is connected to one’s ancestors. And, when Madison talks about Smith’s citizenship, he says it’s because as a minor born in South Carolina (hey that rhymes), “When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society ...” This means Smith was born British and only became a U.S. citizen when South Carolina declared independence with the United States.
In summation, Madison says: “So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.”
Ponder this. He does not say Smith was a natural born citizen by virtue of place of birth. He lists SEVERAL factors in adducing that Smith is a citizen of the United States in order to be eligible for Congress under Art. I.
IOW, there’s nothing here that defines natural born citizen by place only. If there was, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment many years later. Sorry. Game. Set. Match.
Of course -- that's the logical consequence of that argument. But I don't think applying logic to such arguments is what they really have in mind.
Not at all. The term "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution. So instead, you are just using your own idiosyncratic definition of the term while ignoring the plain text of the 14th Amendment. So as a reminder, here it is:
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.
By it's own terms, the amendment says that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen at birth. That was not the law at the time the Constitution was ratified, but that changed with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Such individuals who are "born" in this country are different from people who are naturalized, and the 14th makes that clear as well.
So the 14th described two specific classes of citizens: Those who are citizens at birth, and those who are naturalized. By the plain meaning of the language, a person who is born a citizen is a "natural born citizen", and therefore is eligible to be President. But a person who is only naturalized, like Scharzenegger and other immigrants, is not a "natural born citizen", and therefore ineligible to be President.
But instead, you want to take the undefined phrase "natural-born citizen", and interpret it to exclude people who were born as citizens. That is simply nonsensical. Whatever meaning you might have assigned that phrase in 1787, the plain text of the 14th Amendment changed that. To the extent you're arguing that someone born a citizen is not a "natural born citizen" (as opposed to a naturalized citizen), you're arguing from a liberal, activist position of trying to ignore the plain, common sense meaning of the language.
Now if you want to argue that Obama wasn't even born in this country, fine. But arguing that he isn't a natural born citizen even if he was born in this country runs directly afoul of the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
D@mn straight, there is no room for common sense in Law, cheap tricks, and court room dramas laced with arcane precedent is the only way.
What could be finer
Than to meet in Carolina
In the moooooorning
Bruce, the SCOTUS ruled in Minor v. Happersett that the defintion for NBC exists OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Justice Gray in U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark affirmed this point. Virginia Minor declared she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but Justice Waite rejected this claim on the basis she was already a natural born citizen on not dependent on the amendment. He defined natural born citizen, in direct fulfillment of Art II Sec I, as born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
This leaves the question of who would be dependent on the 14th amendment since it does not apply to NBCs. It would certainly apply to persons born in the country as it is written, but it cannot apply to persons born to citizen parents because of how Waite ruled.
Justice Gray recognized this in the Wong Kim Ark decision. He cited Waite’s definition of NBC and affirmed that the decision declared citizenship on the basis of place and parentage. He could NOT declare Ark to be a natural born citizen because his parents were legally Chinese subjects excluded from U.S. citizenship by treaty. He used English common law to say that the circumstances of the 14th amendment were strong enough to override any treaty (even though this goes against the Constitution itself) and that if the parents had permanent residence or domicil, it was enough to declare the child subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, the 14th declares citizenship at birth for children of resident aliens, but it is NOT natural born citizenship. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
Declare all you want, but “unnecessary to investigate any other” is pretty clear.
The original law was not changed.
A new law was enacted and there is no claim that it superceded the previous understanding of what “natural born” meant when it comes to the eligibility of a citizen to serve as President.
So stipulated, there are citizens of the United States that are not “natural born.”
Do you not concur?
The Constitution did not address citizenship in the fashion that you suggest. It did define just what eligibility for the Presidency required.
Natural born status was not redefined by the 14th.
The 14th was not even about the issue that we have been discussing here.
I see your "Nope" and raise you a "double Nope."
The day Obuttma was immaculated, he became a criminal. That my friend, made all actions backed by POTUS authority, undertaken by the fed gov including military, criminal/illegal. Therefore, any officer carrying out or giving orders, based on the authority of POTUS, is involved in a crime.
This is a no brainer, unless you're an Obuttma bot.
There's your problem. The authority of officers to give orders is from Congress, not POTUS.
Ignore all you want, but birthright by one's ancestors is not any less clear.
"Wrong. The law of the land is what birthers attack, because they don't like the result.
"LOL! What part of our constitution don't you know?"
I know it fairly well, thanks.
"When the result is deception, you better believed the PATRIOTS will stand up!"
The result is that Obama won. Even if he won deceptively, and most polticians do, he still won. The Constitution doesn't have any provisions about being disqualified for being dishonest.
"Others of us don't like it either, but we don't try to undermine our own system because we don't want to accept who won the election. "
"Undermine our system?"
That's right. You know, that Constitution you were talking about.
"The enemy of USA already did that while you were sitting on your hands saying you will accept whatever comes your way. WEAK!!"
But thanks for making my point. You defend the Constitution only up to the point where you don't like the result. Then you call respecting the Constitution "weak". Just like I was saying.
Get a clue - you have no point! Other than showing your lack of patriotism.
Funny. You think respecting the Constitution is weak, but say I lack patriotism. I think you are a little confused.
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.