Posted on 02/17/2011 8:31:53 PM PST by dalight
Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new “conference” on Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency.
Let’s research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.
It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name “Barack Hussein Obama” on it — since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is given.
This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed “Soetobakh” by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillbuzz.org ...
No he was NOT trying to give teeth to the 14th. He bases the first half of the argument on the NBC clause, which is why he spends so much time and effort discussing the original intent of NBC.
“So what you would have us believe is that we are still British states under British law. “
No, what the Supreme Court has said is that the legal language at the time the Constitution was written was common law. It makes it possible to understand what the legal terms in the Constitution mean. The Constitution is a legal document, not a a book of philosophy.
We’re in a situation that has a rough road ahead no matter what choices are made. No easy way through this.
But whatever rids the country of the commie/thug/spitting on the rule of law/power mad/muzzie loving/homoloving gang is the way to go. Palliative measures will not work.
Is this picky - no! It makes a difference.
There is absolutely no difference. A Natural-Born Citizen is the same as a natural-born Citizen is the same as a Natural Born citizen is the same as a Natural Born Citizen.
The Supreme Court has made no distinction in any cases to which it has referred to any interpretation. Neither has Congress. It also does not fall in line with John Jay’s letter to George Washington immediately before the Convention introduced this requirement.
As I continue to ask here, what is the intent of this requirement? Why did the framers insist it be present?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
They are not the same thing. Not at all in a legal/contractual world. And they are not the same thing in standard English usages.
Natural Born Citizen or Natural-Born Citizen or anything that capitalizes natural and born would be is a specific, defined withing the Constitution term. Capitalized terms are special called nouns in a legal document. Had the founders presented the term as above and then failed to provide the specific definition they would have been derelict in their writing. But they did not!
In legal documents capitalization matters. It indicates what is explicitly defined somewhere in the document (contract). Lack of proper use creates issues such as ‘what does this mean’. Being sloppy creates issues where are its not really an issue.
The Supreme Court may have been sloppy. If they were they were not right...they were just sloppy. And in the legal world being sloppy is not good.
I profoundly disagree with you about what the fundamental meaning and intention of ‘under the jurisdiction of’ means in that clause, and what was clearly the intent of the Founders.
A foreigner here on a student visa does not have the same government status re ‘jurisdiction’ as an American citizen, since he holds and is in reality subject to the jurisdiction of his homeland foreign nation and actual legal national citizenship, and which by mandate and/or legal interference with his studies here could’ve ended, had they desired to call him back to Kenya.
Mohammed Atta and many of his savage cohorts were here on student visas. Were their daily lives here actually ‘under the jurisdiction of’ an official entity of the United States, before they were suspected of being murderous savage beasts ?
If your answer is yes, which I believe defies reality and logic, then usually skipping past your replies, which seem argument merely for the sake of argument, ego and debate, lacking sober and serious alarm at the terrifying risks to and purposeful destruction of our dear nation and Constitution, will resume.
On June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a "Committee of Five", consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, to write what is now known as The Declaration of Independence. On July 4, 1776 the committee of the whole adopted its final version. Although historians (will) have many points of controversy and contention, we know that influences include Emerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations. Benjamin Franklin stated that this book was "continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” Additionally, the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights both demonstrated ideas and phrases that appear in the Declaration of Independence.In case you were not aware, it was Benjamin Franklin who penned the Declaration of Independence. De Vattel was used to frame our nation in 1776. All one has to do is simply ready both side-by-side.
- June 11, 1776, Haven 93, 469 Solicitors' Journal and Reporter
"When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.). In the years of the early Republic, this law of nations comprised two principal elements, the first covering the general norms governing the behavior of national states with each other: "the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights," E. de Vattel, Law of Nations, Preliminaries § 3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883) (hereinafter Vattel) (footnote omitted), or "that code of public instruction which defines the rights and prescribes the duties of nations, in their intercourse with each other," 1 James Kent Commentaries *1. This aspect of the law of nations thus occupied the executive and legislative domains, not the judicial. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 68 (1769) (hereinafter Commentaries) ("[O]ffences against" the law of nations are "principally incident to whole states or nations").Even the current U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the fact de Vattel was the primary source of law in the early years of the United States. It understands the significance, and the transition of the judiciary from Blackstone common law to the law of nations.
- (2004) 542 U.S. 692 SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN ET AL. Supreme Court of United States.
It isn’t. Just welcoming you, as of Feb. 6, 2010.
devattel
Since Feb 6, 2011
It isn’t. Just welcoming you, as of Feb. 6, 2011.
devattel
Since Feb 6, 2011
Thank you for the warm welcome!
I certainly do hope that my posts are encouraging some fundamental discussions with regards to the connection between citizenship and the Law of Nations. We need to be looking at fundamental concepts that appear to be lost in the technical aspects of the current eligibility crisis.
I have seen little mention of historical legal transitions of the United States from British common law to U.S. Constitutional law. This appears to be devoid over the entire web in general. Everyone is trying to understand the meaning of the Constitution without really delving into the catalysts that originally sparked its creation.
Even the current U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the fact de Vattel was the primary source of law in the early years of the United States. It understands the significance, and the transition of the judiciary from Blackstone common law to the law of nations.
Watch out Mr. Obama, your day in court is coming.
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship? 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.
Mr. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
…
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?
Scalia wrote a concurrence in Nguyen v. INS, saying [1], very briefly, that he didn’t feel the Court had an ability to grant someone citizenship who did not get it in one of the two ways he described in his concurrence in Miller v. Albright. You don’t have to read Miller very far to realize what Scalia’s talking about and also to realize what little hope there is of the Roberts Court overturning Wong Kim Ark .
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
[1] I remain of the view that the Court lacks power to provide relief of the sort requested in this suit–namely, conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress. See Miller v. Albright,523 U.S. 420, 452 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). A majority of the Justices in Miller having concluded otherwise, see id., at 423 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J.); id., at 460 (Ginsburg, J., joined by Souter and Breyer, JJ., dissenting); id., at 471 (Breyer, J., joined by Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., dissenting); and a majority of the Court today proceeding on the same assumption; I think it appropriate for me to reach the merits of petitioners’ equal protection claims. I join the opinion of the Court.”—Justice Antonin Scalia
The discussion on the 14th Amendment is interesting.
However, if Obama received his original citizenship via the 14th amendment he is not a ‘natural Citizen’ via natural law and thus he is not a ‘natural born Citizen’. The 14 amendment is ‘positive law’, i.e. man-made law. If you need any man-made law to be a Citizen you are not a ‘natural Citizen’.
Oops, I guess someone should have told the founders & framers of the previous English Commonwealth of Virginia that. You know the dead guys that actually wrote the Constitution:
Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth May 1779
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Tucker uses this law as an example of how the founders changed the common law to reflect that of the new Republic which was the law of nature( read the Declaration lately?), thereby abolishing the English common law that was in place prior to the revolution. You know, you should actually read Tucker's appendix's , not just his citing of British law because that is where you find the definition of American law as it was changed after July 4, 1776.
If you listen to BOR you are just a bigboob.
obama is a hateful little man that would LOVE to destroy his political enemies.
He could do this by proving beyond a shadow he is who he claims to be.
The fact that he doesn’t do the extremely small amount of work it takes a normal person to prove this BEYOND ALL DOUBT speaks volumes....
The discussion on the 14th Amendment is interesting.
However, if Obama received his original citizenship via the 14th amendment he is not a ‘natural Citizen’ via natural law and thus he is not a ‘natural born Citizen’. The 14 amendment is ‘positive law’, i.e. man-made law. If you need any man-made law to be a Citizen you are not a ‘natural Citizen’.
Here is what is actually the law of the land since the ratification of the 14th Amendment:
“Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth”
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401.html
The dissent argued that the 14th amendment wasn't strong enough to override the United States' treaty with China. Gray argued that the 14th amendment invoked what he referred to as common law fundamentals of "citizenship by birth". He cited Mr. Justice Story in saying "there was [not] any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States ..." and that "each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens ..." He later said, "statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution." This latter part does not technically square with the Constitution, which says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land .."
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.What Madison is saying here is Mr. Smith's father, grandfather, and great grandfather, his entire family, were all born in the colony he was then attempting to represent as a Congressman. This is the very heart of the discussion with regards to allegiance. Without it, this passage means absolutely nothing.
-- James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179--82
What part of ‘natural’ do you not understand.
If it has to be codified into law - it is not natural.
Notice the word is not capitalized. It is not a ‘special’ or unique term - by design. Same with ‘born’.
Hence ‘natural Citizen and born Citizen’ is exactly equal to ‘natural born Citizen’.
If we ignore English 101 type structures in our Constitution we are doomed as a republic.
This is an excellent citation. Unfortunately it is incomplete, so you and anyone else citing it this way are not placing Madison’s quotation into the proper legal context. Let me cite Madison correctly:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
— James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179—82
What Madison is saying here is Mr. Smith’s father, grandfather, and great grandfather, his entire family, were all born in the colony he was then attempting to represent as a Congressman. This is the very heart of the discussion with regards to allegiance. Without it, this passage means absolutely nothing.
Purposeful omissions such as these completely contradict the very reason it is being quoted. This is not only sloppy, it is unethical and it diminishes ones reputation.
Justice Scalia: [natural born citizenship]...requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
The Wong court also said:
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and the Supreme Court’s majority in Wong Kim Ark also stated that: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
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.