Posted on 05/23/2011 12:43:41 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Rising stars of GOP in doubt because parents from overseas
Are U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal natural-born citizens of the United States, and thus eligible for the presidency?
Plotkin says Jindal's mother became a U.S. citizen Sept. 21, 1976, and his father was naturalized 10 years later on Dec. 4, 1986.
It's a similar situation for Rubio, as his press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator's parents "were permanent legal residents of the U.S." at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, "Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975," Burgos told WND.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Must be a big conspiracy.
Or it might be that FReepers like myself, who have been posting consistently on various topics for over a decade, see a thread that starts trying to take down possible GOP contenders like Jindal and Rubio and we think: "Hey, it's all cute and harmless when they're going after the Democrats, but when their obsessiveness starts threatening potential GOP contenders it's no longer cute and no longer harmless."
That's a possibility.
An explicit and specific definition given by the Founder's Founder would, of course, carry a ton of weight when establishing original intent.
But he did not leave us one.
Hence the debate.
“Well, that was not my quote, but many will disagree with you.
Yes, if born in the US, then you are a citizen, but many question if you are a “natural born” citizen, if the parents are not citizens.
It is a matter of interpretation, and only a court could settle it.
It has obviously not been tested in a court.
As for McStain, the Obots tried to argue that he was not born inside the Canal Zone, but in the city that was excluded from CZ control.
That argument, however, is now moot.”
Hmmm, I must be doing something wrong as I did a reply to whoever made the post, or at least I thought I did. Let’s see what happens with this reply to your reply :)
Well, it will indeed be interesting if it does have to be test in court, and you know it will go all the way to the Supremes. Concerning McCain, Wikipedia states he was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone. Also, the senate confirmed that he was eligible to run for POTUS, but some may have made an attempt to declare him ineligible, don’t know. Had they done so, perhaps we (GOP) would have nominated someone who could have beat Zero.....
I agree!! Romney father was born in Mexico & married in Mexico after living in a Morman coumpound for years...... When did his father become a US citizen? Romney's Grandfather left the US with his wives for Mexico in the late 1800's because the US did not recoginize polygamy!! Romney's dad was nicknamed "Chihuahua George," when he was running for Pres. in 1960's Is this why?? April 12, 2011 Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn’t Need a Birth Certificate Romney may not be able to prove his father was an American Citizen!!
Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
It seems that at some point after I went to school this part of the curriculum ceased to be taught. We now have persons who were taught that Bill Clinton had a legitimate argument when he argued about the meaning of the word “is” after getting caught lying about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinski. For approximately 200 years people were taught what the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” meant when referring to the presidential eligibility requirement. It seems for that for the past 30 or so years this definition has been omitted from the curriculum so that for younger people “Natural Born Citizen” can now mean what ever they want it to mean.
I am not sure how you counter the arguments coming from people who repeatedly insist that “native born” means the same thing as “natural born” despite ample evidence that the framers had a specific meaning in mind. Can one really believe that the framers of the constitution would have allowed King George's son to serve as president if he had impregnated an underage girl who had a baby on US soil. It is ridiculous... yet that is the argument that these people must make if they actually believe what they are saying.
1. WKA, born in country to 2 legal immigrant aliens who were permanently domiciled here (& conducting a business) was found by the court to be a "citizen" (one word). They did not find Ark to be a "natural born Citizen."
It's interesting to note, that Associate Justice Horace Gray (who delivered the majority opinion) was appointed to the bench by none other than the original usurper...Chester Arthur...who was born in this country...but to a foreign national father and who ordered his personal and official papers burned on November 16 1886, one day prior to his death. Undoubtedly he did this to cover his tracks as being born a British subject (inherited from his foreign national father).
b. If you want to cite dicta, fine:
Chief Justice Marshall:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814).
It's why we see Chief Justice Waite state
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], 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,"in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Barry, born a multi-national...a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England (inherited by birthright from his foreign father), never was a "natural born Citizen" as known and intended by the framers for the position of Commander in Chief of the American "Army and Navy."
| Office | Citizenship | Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
| Commander in Chief | natural born Citizen | 35 | 14 years resident |
| Senator | Citizen | 30 | 9 years a Citizen |
| Represantative | Citizen | 25 | 7 years a Citizen |
Why would any self described conservative or "constitutionalist" be arguing in favor of a born multi-nationalist being considered a "natural born Citizen" for the position of Commander in Chief of the military?
Are they really multi-nationalist's themselves? Globalist? Anti-American sovereignty types?
Father's status known or unknown?
If known and US citizen then probably.
If not known or foreign national or dual citizen....I would say no.
No other country could ever lay claim to child and the child was not 'governed' by other country laws in any way, shape or form what-so-ever.
There-in lies the "crux" of the issue surrounding multi-nationals, or dual nations. Another country can lawfully lay claim to that individual (who holds foreign citizenship, by birth or by choice), most notibly, when it comes to the issue of a military draft. This has been a concern since the founding of the country. Leo discussed just this issue, recently [1].
dual nations —> dual nationals
That distinction of terms may make sense to you but I think that no Founder would make any sense of it.
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
And this...
US State Department Services Dual Nationalityhttp://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...
While in the confines of one’s own thoughts shortcuts like “AIIS1” or “AII” make sense, what stops you except laziness to make the meanings clear and not abbreviations to those who do not occupy the same physical space between your own ears?
Talk about PRECISION!
They would have been aware of the difference between Continental legal systems based on Roman/Imperial models and the English common law. Their familiarity with Blackstone would aid in that, since his introduction is one of the more famous discussions of the distinction in legal history.
Even if what you imply is true (that there has been no legal or legislative definition), the fact still remains that the phrase "natural born Citizen" exists in the Constitution, and it applies only to the qualification to be President or Vice-President.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does not allow you to disregard the existence of "natural born Citizen" in regards to the Article II qualifications. It must, therefore, be acknowledged and defined, not discarded as inconvenient or not complying with original or conventional interpretation.
The answer is not to argue that "natural born Citizen" doesn't exist. The answer is to acknowledge that it does exist and define it once and for all.
-PJ
You must remember, as anyone must, who would pursue that valid line of analysis, that the Founders were SPLITTING from monarchy. Blackstone was a committed Monarchist. While the Founders took the English and Scottish common law heritage for granted in large part, that large part being relations between citizens, in the part of establishing the rules of government and the requirements for those in positions of authority within that government they had to draw wisdom from other wells.
Indeed.
When the Decleration of Independence and the Constitution were writen, English subjects could not renounce their alligience to the one soverign, the crown:
"Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
How, then, did they declare their Independence from the King if they were not permitted to do so under English Common law?
They used the principles found in natural law. Vattel states, in the Law of Nations (which is based on natural law), that citizens may renounce (or quit) their citizenship and allegience to a country:
"Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To ItThe founders could never have writen the Declaration of Independance had they stuck with, or adhered to, English Common law.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ..."
Furthermore:
October 18, 1787 - James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason [Edit: George Mason] was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
June 18, 1788 - George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), states:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Just as they had done more than a decade earlier by declaring their independance from the crown, here we see the father of the Constitution, and the father of the Bill of Rights rejecting the English Common Law as being the American Common Law.
The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on natural law principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power (See James Otis, John and Samuel Adams letters in the 1760's - 1770's). The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was writen and ratified [1]
Why natural law. Vattel vs English common law. Blackstone: "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
Arnold Schwarzenegger is not POTUS eligible.
Of course, you most assuredly cannot make that statement about Zero.
 Chief Justice John Roberts performs a do-over just to make sure that very precedent is set. |
Stare decisis et non quieta movere!
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.