Research Help: Spiro Agnew a Natural Born Citizen?

[rhubarbb]

Sorry if this is in the wrong area, this is my first time posting. I'm a long-time lurker who loves FR and I use what I learn all the time against my friends, some of whom (Unfortunately) are liberal. It's the price of going to a big college. I'm really good about speaking the truth to them and showing how they're wrong, and most of my best arguments come from FR. But there's been one question that one of my friends keeps repeating and while I know he's wrong I can't prove it and it's bugging me.

I know the best researchers are here and I figured someone here has figured out how to set the Obama-bots straight on the issue. I've searched through all the other threads on eligibility and didn't find anything.

======

My friend says that Spio Agnew (Nixon's VP) proves that you don't need two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Now, I know that the Vice President must meet the same elgibility requirements as the President, and therefore must also be a Natural Born Citizen (12th Amendment). My friend claims that Spiro Agnew's father was a Greek Citizen when he was born. I've tried to find any information to confirm and deny this, but can't find anything. I know he's wrong (he's a Dem... haha) but need help with the proof.

I can't see Nixon choosing someone, and the Republicans electing, a vice president that was obviously unqualified for office.

So my question:

Is this true? Have one of the researcher's looked into Agnew's citizenship? Did Nixon choose a VP that was not a Natural Born Citizen? And if so, did he hide it like Chester A. Arthur did? I figure that one of the reasons I can't find any information on it might be because he did the "hide your past" thing like Arthur.

Any help would be great and help to take a liberal down!!

[Beckwith]

The birth certificate debate is the dumbest waste of energy ever in American politics.

Is the Constitutional issue also the dumbest waste of energy ever in American politics?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I thought you were smart enough that a sarcasm tag wasn’t necessary.

[Will88]

Face it he was a naturalized citizen. for the census he would have to provide the docs.

What the census required varied from decade to decade. The original question of Agnew's eligibility sprung from the 1920 census, not 1930. Now, no questions concerning citizenship are even allowed.

I don't know what you think I need to face. All I've said here is that this entire discussion surrounding Agnew is based on a misinterpretation of something recorded in the 1920 census. And that's a fact.

[KevinDavis]

READ THIS:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

[Beckwith]

He will be defeated on the issues.

And one of those issues is his constitutional eligibility.

[Figment]

“Both parents must be United States Citizens, place of birth does not factor into the equation”

Yes it does factor in. I have a cousin who nearly lost a commission to USAF Academy because he was born on foreign soil in a civilian hospital.

[fight_truth_decay]

You jacksass birthers love to do this

Whether we agree or not and/or place the same amount of importance on this issue: They are patriots like you and me. They have a right to free speech.

You and I may find other very important issues neglected as so much time is spent on conspiracies. However, if a "living and breathing" Republican cannot win over this man when it comes to issues that truly effect every American and their lifestyle--then it is a kiss of death to Republicans- as they also will be deemed no better to run this country as the LEFT has done under Obama.

[rawcatslyentist]

They way I understand the term, a person who is born on United States soil is a natural born cizen

If Hitler came to America, and had cheeruns, would they be eligible?

This is why the citizenship of the parents matter!

[Longbow1969]

He’s got an opportunity to show what he’s made of now. He could either continue to beat the “show us the records” drum, or he could stand up and say “Look, it was a legitimate question, I am the only one who would raise it and get an answer. That shows my ability to take on difficult issues and get results, which are attributes of a good President”.

Yes, I generally agree. There was nothing necessarily wrong with asking for the long form. Presidents and politicians get asked for background information all the time. My point on the "birther" stuff is that is should NEVER have been made a prominent issue. The likelihood of some massive conspiracy existing was always slim to none. At best, "birther" stuff was a back burner issue - a curiosity. Claiming his investigators were finding "amazing" stuff and "couldn't believe what they were finding" and then not backing it up at all makes him look like an utter buffoon.

Now if Trump wants to be at all taken seriously politically he needs to do just what you said. Say, "hey, I want more information whenever I can get it, there is nothing wrong with asking", and pivot to actual, real issues that effect Americans lives - the economy. And he needs to do this with serious policy positions (not stupid stuff like claiming he is going to seize Iraq or Libyan oil). Also it would help him if he refrained from dropping F bombs and calling the Chinese mother****ers in his speeches. Personally, I don't think Trump can do it because I don't think Trump was ever a serious political candidate with serious political policy positions. Further, he is NOT even remotely conservative and therefore is going to have a difficult time getting any traction among traditional, conservative primary voters once the campaign season really gets going.

[sometime lurker]

The Law of Nations, from which the eligibility standard stated in the U. S. Constitution is derived

And your proof of this is where? Much of the Constitution and early American law is based on English Common Law. James Madison, father of the Constitution, did not agree with Vattel.

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.

[Steel Wolf]

Yes, Obama needs to be opposed on the issues, but he also needs to be opposed on his ineligibility to hold office. Contrary to what some may think, we conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time.

That sounds lovely, but it's a non-sequitur.

The average American voter isn't going to trust conservatives if they dilute intelligent positions on the economy, foreign policy and social issues with an issue that is considered a factually incorrect joke by the vast majority of the country.

It's easy. Current legal thought points to the 14th Amendment, which supersedes, or amends, earlier interpretations of the Constitution. Courts concur, American people concur, GOP avoids, DNC stokes. You don't have to be Sun Tzu to see how this battle is going.

If birthers could really walk and chew gum at the same time, it would occur to you that you're walking off a cliff.

[JohnG45]

I thought you were smart enough that a sarcasm tag wasn’t necessary.

I'm sorry.

It flew right over my head.

I guess I'm not that smart.

[Let_It_Be_So]

"Obama will not be defeated by conspiracy theories, he will be defeated on the issues - primarily his horrendous mismanagement of the economy. "

Whether Obama or any future candidate for the Office of the President is a natural born citizen is a legitimate question, if we value the words of the US Constitution.  I agree that the NBC issue has been "muddied" with fringe conspiracy theories, etc. but we should be able to make a distinction between some of the nuttiness and the legitimate question of the definition of "Natural Born Citizen".

Personally, I've never believed that this matter would have much of a bearing on Obama himself (I agree with you that he will have to be defeated in 2012 by focusing on his record, especially the economic catastrophe he has exacerbated with his foolish Keynesian/Redistributionist policies). 

However, whether any candidate for President is qualified to hold that office is an important one.  Sure, we can ignore it and just assume it will eventually be resolved by some future generation.  I had rather not abdicate THIS generation's responsibility to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution by calling it "drivel" and punting to another generation to deal with.

[Marty62]

The family name was changed and shorten at least three times after SR came to US. Only a search of his name of record in 1903 would provide the confirmation the question requests. However, we are talking about over 100 years. The left is REALLY grasping at straws on this one.

I think the Zero Admin wants to keep the bc issue alive, because it diverts attention from the real issue, he was raised by avowed Marxist. That is what is important to me.
As far as Agnew is concerned he went thru numerous elections, I’m sure the Dems of the time would have made political hay if his Father had not been Naturalized. I doubt they had Student visas back then.

[Windflier]

You seem to have had that quote stashed and at the ready, to post on a thread such as this. Must have taken you some time to dig it up.

If I were of a mind today, I’m sure that I could go through Madison’s writings and come up with a countervailing quote about the NBC question for you. Perhaps I will, another time.

Frankly, this issue has been more thoroughly discussed on this website, than any other place I’m aware of, and I know that what I would seek has likely already been posted here scores of times.

No matter what any of us think about what the Framers considered on this subject, the argument that the office of president should have the strictest requirements possible, is still logical and well-reasoned.

If anything, we present-day Americans should be drawing on the lessons of history and contemporary events to guide our thinking on this matter, and we should all be strongly advocating for the highest possible standard for presidential eligibility.

[rawcatslyentist]

James Madison, father of the Constitution

TJ might have a bit of a problem with your description of Maddie!

Madiie is WRONG!

[Windflier]

The 14th Amendment addresses who can be a citizen, not who can be a Natural Born Citizen.

This really isn’t as complicated as folks like you are trying to make it, and painting constitutional patriots as some sort of ‘conspiracy nutcases’ is simply doing the work of the enemy.

If you’re willing to concede your conservative principles, and ignore the fact that Obama and the left are trampling on something as basic as the constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility, then you’ve already surrendered to the pressure of their political correctness.

There’s no point in having a constitution, or even a country, if you’re not willing to fight for it.

[Mr Rogers]

“The Law of Nations, from which the eligibility standard stated in the U. S. Constitution is derived...”

The US Supreme Court says the meaning is found in English common law. Not an edition of Vattel published 10 years after the Constitution was written. But then, US law doesn’t follow Vattel on citizenship, or everything would depend on our parent’s status.

[Electric Graffiti]

If Hitler came to America, and had cheeruns, would they be eligible?

Exactly, I agree with you and so does Leo:

"If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."-----Leo Donofrio.

Reading the other thread about Chester Arthur, I found this post by GGMac:

How amazingly profound your statement is. You said, “Obama Sr. never intended to become a citizen of the US. His INTENT WAS ALWAYS TO GO BACK TO KENYA AND BE PART OF THE REVOLUTION there.” [caps for emphasis]

And what, then, did Barry title his book? “Dreams From My Father”.

As in “dreams FROM my father”.

As in, Barry’s dream was/is to be the personification - the fulfillment - of his father’s dreams.

His father’s dream was for Kenya to be a Communist nation with a taxation rate of 100%.

And now, there sits Barry - in the Oval Office with his filthy shoes on the desk, honing his hammer and sickle.

Split loyalties indeed!. And it doesn’t matter [in this aspect] whether or not Sr. actually was his father. Barry has ideologically and emotionally proclaimed him to be his father and the source of whom and what he has chosen to be.

GGMac is spot on.....Exactly what the framers wanted to prevent. Adding Vattel and a few pictures to complete GGMac's excellent post :

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.









Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?

[sometime lurker]

If I were of a mind today, I’m sure that I could go through Madison’s writings and come up with a countervailing quote about the NBC question for you. Perhaps I will, another time.

Please do look for one. I would be most interested to see it. Funny that no one has found it until now, yet the Madison quote I posted has been kicking around birther threads for at least two years.