Replies

The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against John McCain long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.

In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.

Senate Resolution 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change to.

Absolutely Vendome. I won't repeat your explanation because it is clear and correct. The question is about their strategy. There is precedent. It is important to know that Obama’s Constitutional Law Professor, Larry Tribe, wrote the legal analysis cited by the Leahy/McCaslill resolution, SR 511. This is Larry's specialty. Larry sat on Obama’s campaign committee, as did McCaskill. (Larry was also protected from the consequences of his plaigiarizing much of another book, word-for-word, by Elena Kagan, then Harvard Law Dean.)

Tribe would have known about what Sharon Rondeau exposed, the lengthy brief published in the largest circulation legal publication of the time, Chicago Legal News, by Breckenridge Long exposing former supreme court justice Charles Evans Hughes' ineligibility; Hughes was born of parents who were British Subjects. That was in 1916. After losing to Wilson, Hughes was reappointed the the court, Chief Justice, where, in 1939, he wrote the decision for Perkins v. Elg, in which Morrison Waite's definition (...it was never doubted...at common-law...of parents who were its citizen...) was cited. Apparently Hughes thought he could suppress the issue, just as Obama has done. What would have happened if Hughes had beaten Woodrow Wilson?

A similarly thorough analysis of McCain's ineligibility was published at the John Rogers Law School of the University of Arizona by Professor Gabriel Chin “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship.” It can only be conjecture, but this thorough Chin analysis covered the legal issues with detail sufficient for a lawsuit. This, and Senate Res 511 were what silenced Republican objections to Obama’s lack of natural born Citizenship. The Breckenridge Long paper was similarly thorough.

A political historian would have to illuminate the political context for the Charles Evans Hughes campaign, since Woodrow Wilson appears to have been a natural born Citizen. Hughes was a Republican and Long a Democrat, and the Chicago Legal News brief was a shot across the bow. McCain's natural born citizenship problem has been a topic for at least ten years. He was, it turns out, not born on sovereign soil, nor was the Canal Zone under sovereign jurisdiction until 1937 McCain did provide a birth certificate, and Gabriel Chin published the facts in a peer-reviewed legal journal. That was the shot across the bow of the Republican party

Most of us find the jus soli restriction to children of military in need of change. Those who put their lives on the line to protect our Constitution should be reputed natural born, but, as Obama/McCaskill pointed out in their February 2008 Bill, SB 2678, it is not now the case (Their bill was called "A Bill To Insure That Foreign Born Children of Military Citizen are Eligible to be President." Had McCaskill/Obama meant to fix it, they would have submitted an amendment. McCain's ineligibility was an opportunity, the perfect opportunity allowing the far left to run its British/Kenyan community activist. It is why the Democrats went to such extent to support McCain's legal problems, all but shutting down the NYT and WaPo reporters who wrote knowledgably about natural born Citizenship until May of 2008. They assumed that the public would not have the energy, intellect, or courage to overcome the campaign of ridicule - Birthers. Running against an ineligible McCain silenced the Repbulicans before the election, and made all Republican legislators complicit, keeping them silent after McCain's defeat. No one can know if they would have removed McCain had he won, but it seems likely. A law cannot amend the Constitution. This bill and resolution were agitprop.

You can read the Breckenridge Long essay by searching ScribD.com for Charles Evans Hughes, or find the pointer Rondeau’s www.thepostemail.com . Find the Chin essay the Univ of Arizona.