Posted on 04/05/2011 12:22:35 AM PDT by The Big Boo
It is a rule of legislative construction, that one law must explicitly say it is changing or amending an existing law, if that is the desired objective.
If such explicit language is not found in the text of the "amending" law, then recourse is made to the "intent" of the amending law. This intent is determined by the debate and other language used during the process of enacting the new law.
If after this, the intent is stll not clear, then a determination must be made whether both the new and old law can both be read to give effect to their primary and original requirements.
If this cannot be done, the new law may suffer a fatal defect and have no legal impact on the "supposed" amendments.
A Constitutional Amendment, like the Constitution, is law.
The 14th Amendment does not explicitly amend or change Article II regarding the natural born requirements of POTUS. Its only reference to the President lies in prohibiting office holding by those electeds or other officers of states who foreswore their oath to the U.S. by joining the Confederacy. This was not meant to be a permanent injunction. The 14th Amendment does not mention "natural born". Rather it deals with citizenship and in particular baring states from prevening citizenship for the newly freed slaves. This is all easily understandable as it was a reconstruction era Amendment. In such a universe and at such a time, more than ever coming after the terrible civil war, it would be unthinkable for Congress to "water" down in any fashion the requirement for natural born as POTUS.
Given that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT explicitly repeal or amend Article II regarding natural born, if one were to make such a difficult reach, one would have to look to intent.
There is NO, that would be NONE, that would be NADDA evidence of any intent that the 14th Amendment would apply or change the eligibility requirements of Article II, excepting the issue of the oath as cited above. In fact the Father of the 14th Amendment, says just the opposite, that it WILL NOT change natural born.
Given that the 14th Amendment does not explicitly repeal or amend Article II regarding natural born, and given that the intent of 14th Amendment, clearly recorded by those who authored it at the time, was NOT to change the requirements of Natural Born, it then comes down to, is there a way that both laws can be read to give effect to their desired outcomes and requirements?
In this case, yes. Because Article II regarding natural born was not changed, it shall be as it always was: a person born in country of two citizen parents.
And for "citizenship" of the newly freed slaves, the purpose of the 14th Amendment, no state will obstruct their rights. There is no contradiction between the two.
The 14th Admenment does not suffer a fatal flaw and may have effect on its desired outcome.
I am surprised how supposed "experts" here on FR can spout on and on about Wom Kim Ark nonsense and the 14th Amendment when they have absolutely no apparent familiarity with the basic rules of legislative interpretation.
Sadly, in a free republic we cannot avoid hearing their blubbering nonsense as they pontificate their falsehoods.
The Big Boo
What is there to say? The 14th amendment was the most irresponsibly written amendment in the Constitution. the people who wrote and ratified it(the ones who did not have a gun to their head, IE the 11 southern States). Were irresponsible, shortsighted, overzealous idiots.
Even among that lot the amendment was only ever passed because 1 state was not allowed to rescind its foolish ratification after having held an election on the matter.
was someone trying to make the case the 0bama qualifies for the office under the 14th amendment??
Natural born citizenship is not a type of citizenship. It is ONLY an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States. Its sole appearance in our legal system is in Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution.
The types of citizenship recognized by legal statute are: native born citizenship (jus solis); derived citizenship from parent(s)(jus sanguinis); or, naturalized citizenship. See: USCIS for further information.
The 14th Amendment has no impact on Article II’s eligibility requirement.
LOL, well, you're brazen, I'll give you that.
But legislative construction is exactly where the 14th is terminally flawed in it's entirety, because it specifies positive protections for previously exemplified negative rights.
That's about as fundamental a contradiction as can possibly be made. And it led to the Supreme Court ruling that because it could not be reconciled with negative rights personam jurisdiction, it must therefore be limited solely to applicability within federal administrative law.
And from this, came the administrative overreach of the feds we all enjoy today, and the swapping of statutory and regulatory "privileges" for natural rights that is endemic in what is passing for "law."
And, oh yeah, by-the-by, does therefore establish a "fatal flaw" in the very essence of the 14th Amendment, as it disqualifies it from the very population towards which the original Bill of Rights was addressed.
Which would be educational, but it's actually not, for you, now is it? Because your careful description of basic interpretive legal construction, combined with your sneering close, indicates you're someone who well understands the tightrope of bald-faced fraudulent deceit he's walking.
For in fact, by fraudulently and calculatedly narrow logical construction, you invoked the rules of federal administrative construction in order to mislead your readers about original Constitutional construction, without noting the different applications involved.
Not nice. Not nice at all. Or just stupid. But I rather think it's more than mere stupidity on your part, don't you?
Your arrogance will be your downfall, grasshopper - and the downfall of the rest of the insects you serve.
Sorry Monorprise, my post #5 was not meant for you, but for The Big Boo. I hit the wrong reply link, my apologies.
The Big Boo, please read my post #5 to you, and then get lost.
I have shown in the simplest terms of standard legislative interpretation why they are full of doo doo.
It won't stop them, because their cause is to legitimize the usurper's rule no matter how many falsehoods and cover ups they must participate in.
The Big Boo
next time please try to stay on point, it well help keep the discussion focused on the matter at hand...
you are quite the gasbag!!!!
The Big Boo
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. In Minor v. Happersett, Justice Waite clearly referred to natural born citizenship as a class of citizenship when he defined it.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
I bolded where Waite talks about these two classes of citizenship. The context is important here because Waite offered this definition to explain that women who are natural born citizens do not need the 14th amendment to give them citizenship.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
Waite reiterates this point later in the decision specifically in relation to Viriginina Minor, who had claimed a right to vote as a 14th amendment citizen. Waite rejected her claim because she was a natural born citizen.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
The Wong Kim Ark decisions cites Waite's definition of natural born citizen and affirms that Minor was found to be a citizen on the basis of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
We get from these two decisions that Natural Born Citizenship is defined outside of the Constitution and Statutory Law. Citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment is a separate Constitutionally defined type of citizenship that excludes natural born citizens, but that one's parents must have permanent domicil and residence in order to meet the requirement of being subject to the jurisdiction. There are other types of statutory citizenship by birth, but these are not to be confused with natural born citizenship.
Im not arguing that the 14th amendment does anything to the original constitution. I don’t need to, its possible to read the 14th amendment into saying anything and everything you want. Them undefined “rights” of Americans could be just that anything under the sun including a great many usurpation as illustrated repeatedly by our beloved dictators in black robes over the last 100 years.
The people who wrote and ratified the 14th amendment.(the ones who did not have a gun to their head and thus had a choice). Were shortsighted power corrupted leftist nutcases(is there any other kind?). While they all may be burning in hell today their legacy of irresponsibility continues to haunt us. A legacy that starts with the war of imperial domination they started and waged.
Citizenship
These are the legal, statute types of citizenship recognized by the U.S. government.
Go ahead — find natural born citizenship! It isn’t there.
Natural born citizen is only an eligibility requirement for serving as President of the United States per our Constitution.
What part of OUTSIDE the Constitution means it would be defined by statute to you?? The SCOTUS was pretty clear.
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
- - - -
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
- - - -
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption.
- - - -
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.
- - - -
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
Justice Waite describes this process; the people who declared this nation were the original citizens and those born to them or born to naturalized citizens were natural born citizens. We have always had this type of citizenship regardless of the 14th amendment and regardless of statutes.
SCOTUS isn’t responsible for determining the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, if that is what you’re trying for here. Congress has the Constitutional power to make law and create legal definitions, not SCOTUS.
So what exactly are you trying to say here?
Are you searching for a definition of ‘natural born citizen’?
I’ve been researching this issue since the summer of 2008, both here on Free Republic and on other blogs.
If you care about this subject, someone who’s been doing this for years is Leo Donofrio. He’s a lawyer and has a blog on the subject.
Natural Born Citizen, see:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
No, that would be the 16th
Congress certainly has the power of naturalization and it certainly writes definitions, but the the Supreme Court has the final judicial power in the United States. It gave a judgment on natural born citizenship for Virigia Minor. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that judgment and followed the precedent that was set. Obama is NOT an NBC by the Supreme Court's decision.
You’re talking to someone who already knows that.
You weren’t showing it in your previous post.
As I've already said, since 2008 I've been researching this subject.
Vattel’s Law of Nations is referenced in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, so the majority of folks posting on Free Republic are aware of that document's importance on our Constitution as well as that of natural born citizen.
“A natural born citizen is born in a nation of citizen parents”. Nice and simple, it is natural law and doesn't require a legal statute. It is purely logical on its own.
By the way, after the past three intensive years of discussion on this subject, most folks here on Free Republic understand the above information. There are a few who refuse to acknowledge the Law of Nation's definition — keep posting and they will find you, I guarantee it!
Good for you. Earlier you said NBC wasn't a type of citizenship and I showed a SCOTUS case that disagreed. Certainly you should have known this if you've been researching the subject.
“and Don’t Be Stupid”
Too late. You already are. What a stupid thread title. Screw you and you’re stupidity! What an arrogant ass to think that if someone doesn’t agree with your childish and ignorant arguments they are simply being stupid.
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.