Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.
One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.
In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
Well, no, the court found that the governor couldn't be sued for failing to vet presidential candidates. Nothing in that decision held that Obama was eligible for office.
You said: “Nothing in that decision held that Obama was eligible for office. “
Quick, call 911!!! Your pants are on fire!!!
It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.So he is quoting Vattel about aliens living in another country to determine if the ship was properly seized. Not about "natural born" at all.
You are very inconsistent - when the court quotes Vattel for any purpose at all, you insist the court has accepted Vattel's definition of "natural born". When the court quotes anyone who declares that we follow English common law about "natural born" you discount it, even when the case is about citizenship at birth. Not very intellectually honest, is it?
"Before you even start arguing domicile, there's the little matter of a mother who was a US citizen."
It is a "little matter" since the Supreme Court has said in at least two different cases that the child naturally follows the condition of the father, one of which I just quoted. Second, why are you bringing up Obama's mama's citizenship if the 14th amendment doesn't look at the citizenship of the parents?? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether Obama should be a citizen by jus soli or jus sanguinis now.
You are once again relying on a quote from Vattel, where that particular part of the quote has nothing to do with the case. The judges in the case say nothing of the kind, but rather stick to the issue at hand.
You seem not to be able to hold more than one idea at a time. Children born in the US (usual exceptions) are citizens. You were trying to argue that 0bama wasn't a citizen because his father wasn't "domiciled" enough. It wouldn't matter a whit if his father landed at the airport, fathered baby Hussain, and left 10 minutes later. If he was born here, he's a natural born US citizen. Beyond that, since you seemed to be claiming he wasn't a citizen at all, we don't even need to go into "how domiciled was he." His mother was a US citizen. FYI, there are various routes to citizenship:
Then YOU obviously have NOT read Jones versus U.S:
The twin requirements of the 14th Amendment, birth in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are the same as the common law requirements of birth and allegiance. There is no difference. 14th Amendment citizens by birth are natural born citizens.
When they did deviate about citizenship, they were quite specific about it. They never abrogated, (in fact periodically affirmed) jus soli. What they changed was the English idea of "once an English subject, always an English subject." Several justices discuss the right of a citizen to renounce and cease to be a subject or citizen.
English Children born anywhere are English Subjects.
And American children born anywhere are American citizens - or do you disagree? The court has affirmed in Rogers v Bellei that we follow jus soli (with modifications by statute.)
If you acquire your citizenship at birth, you are a natural born citizen. You have no clue what you are talking about. It is time for you to retire before you embarrass yourself further.
Find me a direct quote that says Obama is eligible in the decision. Hop to, squeezy.
I am NOT your froggie. It is in Ankeny and you know it. Sooo, you go read Ankeny again. Plus, I am sure it is in this thread above.
So There
... per the 14th amendment. We don't need the court to tell us this. We can read it ourselves.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Yes, it says "born or naturalized." It doesn't say "natural-born citizen." This is why Gray said that when construing the 14th amendment, the Constitution does NOT say who NBCs are.
If you acquire your citizenship at birth, you are a natural born citizen.
No, if you acquire citizenship at birth by being born in the country to citizen parents, you are a natural-born citizen. Any others who might be citizens at birth must have doubts resolved ... either by showing which amendment or statute confers the alleged citizenship, that they are subject to the jurisdiction or if they meet some other statutory requirements. NBCs do not have to have any doubts solved.
Sorry, squeezy, but there’s nothing in the Ankeny decision that says Obama is eligible. They couldn’t because even under their errant interpretation of WKA, there was no proof that Obama was born in the United States.
Oh, I can’t wait to see how you are going to butcher this quote. I am going to go tinkle first, so I don’t have a accident when I read what you are going to say. OH Tee Hee!:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
What, are you going to say it doesn’t say Obama??? Surely not. But I don’t put anything past you Vattle Birthers.
FYI, the case was tried at the trial court on stipulated evidence. The plaintiff stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii and the defendant stipulated that Obama’s father was not a citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.
No kidding. He just happens to be named frequently in The Venus.
This case (not about "natural born," which you seemed to find so important re Rogers v. Bellei) is about American citizen merchants who are living in England, when the War of 1812 commences, and their cargo is seized by a US privateer.
I didn't claim The Venus was about "natural born." I cited it to show you that Vattel was connected with the law of nations, whether capitalized or uncapitalized. I believe this is what YOU call a strawman response.
That aside, your quote from the case undermines your argument because it talks about "retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside" ... when this is coupled with the Vattel citation on natural citizenship, it still says that the condition of a child naturally follows the political status of the father. This still means Obama would be a British-Kenyan and not a U.S. citizen by any natural means.
You are once again relying on a quote from Vattel, where that particular part of the quote has nothing to do with the case.
You need to reconcile that with the Supreme Court. They went on to say, "Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, ..." Under this doctrine, even if Barak Sr. had expressed an intention to live permanently in the U.S., at best he would be a kind of citizen of an "inferior order" of which his child would naturally follow. This would make Obama an inferior citizen, on which we can all agree.
Children born in the US (usual exceptions) are citizens.
Right, but they are not natural born citizens unless they are born in the U.S. to citizen parents (with NO exceptions).
You were trying to argue that 0bama wasn't a citizen because his father wasn't "domiciled" enough.
No, I didn't say anything about having "enough" domicile. I said his parents had NO domicile as was defined by the SCOTUS. Barak Sr. was kicked out of this country.His mother married a second foreign national and left the U.S. Where do we find any parent with an intention to have a permanent abode in the U.S.???
Common law gives jus soli.
But it does NOT define NBC. The only "common law" we have is through the 14th amendment and later statutes, but these comes with exception and/or other stipulations.
The Ankeny court didn't declare Obama to be a natural born citizen. I'll give you the same challenge as ez squeezy. If you think it's there, go find it and post it.
There's nothing to butcher, other than your demented understanding of what you posted. Where do you see the name Obama in that quote??
I don’t know if he is dense, or if he is acting stupid on purpose. Whichever, he is working overtime to not “get it.” From this article I am reading, called When Law Risk Madness, some people go off the deep end on legal stuff. There is a whole group of people who get weird. Some think if they put their name in all caps, they can’t be sued. Or put a comma in their name.
Others are using the 14th Amendment to say they are not citizens. For example, one here has said that he does not think the 14th Amendment applies to people who are born in America to two citizen parents. Sooo, I think it is a big act being as dumb as this, but who knows. I would love to hook some of these people up to a lie detector.
Yep, there you went, right off the deep end!!! Tee Hee!!! Read the first part of the case, read the case, show the first part and the case to other people, and ask them who the suit is about. Obama and Mccain, and McCain does not have a foreign parent. Excerpts:
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
But you know, you are really on a streak here! I think you should keep going, because by now, anybody reading this will be convinced Mark Levin was right. Because Mark Levin didn’t say the Vattle Birthers were heretical, and had minority legal views. Nope. He came right out and said you Vattle Birthers were NOT rational.
Are you blind or just stupid??
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” ...
Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency.
Thus, we conclude that Plaintiffs‟ argument that the Governor has allowed President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain to be appointed “Elector in Chief” in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition against sitting Senators being appointed Elector for any State fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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.