You don't like Vattel? How about Matthew Bacon? 1736, and from a book known to be in the possession of Founder John Adams. 
He says the same thing as Vattel.
Posted on 01/16/2012 11:21:39 AM PST by Obama Exposer
NBC Reference bump ... ;-)
You don't like Vattel? How about Matthew Bacon? 1736, and from a book known to be in the possession of Founder John Adams.
He says the same thing as Vattel.
statutory exceptions which prove the rule.
McCain had to be suject to a statutory exception in order to fit into the citizenship rule.
as for deriving only from the father, in this day and age that is laughable as we do not even allow a widows only share of inheritance, we have widow’s or widower’s share for inheritance.
again there are only two types of citizen NOT three.
True…but:
if your gonna navigate the Mississippi with me don’t get on in Cape Giraudeau…
possession does not equal agreement nor establish validity.
so it is misinterprited from two sources rather than just one. congrats.
You are correct. Herbert Hoover’s foreign born mother as well as Woodrow Wilsons foreign born mother were made U.S. citizens by derivative marriage to their American born husbands. That made both Hoover and Wilson natural born citizens at their births with born sole allegiance to the United States.
"Partus Sequitur Patrem". (The Father's country is the child's country.)
The case will ultimately be heard, yet again, as will US v. Wong Kim Ark.
It is now not sufficient to have clearly defined law; we have to argue "what is is".
As with Minor v Happersett, there are different subsets or classes of citizens: native born, natural born and naturalized.
Obama claimed on his campaign website to be native born, not natural born which Article 2 Section 1 specifically requires to be president.
See the chart to understand:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/naturalbornchart07292009.jpg
Your initial assertion, George's parents were citizens so George is a citizen was correct. Your claim that “...Children born abroad to US Citizen parents are “natural born” is not. The “Naturalization Act of 1790” was, first, a “Naturalization Act” - Presidents must be “Natural” and not “Naturalized Citizens.” Second, the Act from the 1st Congress was completely erased, and was certainly not constitutionally correct - Congress cannot interpret or modify a decision of the Supreme Court, except by Amendment. The Act from 1795 that replaced the first act (both Acts signed by President George Washington, who approved of the wording in Article II Section 1, and whose most respected source for the Law of Nations was Vattel, clearly makes the children of citizen parents born overseas “citizens.” There is no mention in the 1795 Act of natural born citizens, just as there is no mention of the term in all of US Code, nor in the 14th Amendment, though the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, clearly asserted that the Vattel common law was unquestioned during his two addresses to the House
Obots have been throwing in the 1790 Act so often it is no surprise that even people who read are confused. Even Ted Olson and Larry Tribe, in their letter to help insure that McCain, patently ineligible, would be presumed to have been cleared by SR511 by people who didn't know that “resolutions” are not actionable, tried to confuse people by implying that the 1790 Act had not been immediately “erased. Tribe and Olson, Tribe, Obama's constitutional law professor at Harvard, and on Obama's elction committee, never mentions the 1795 erasure and restatement of Congress' declaration that foreign-born children of citizens are citizens too.”
Some think that Washington may have signed the 1790 Act, which was retroactive, because the children of some diplomats or military were born overseas during the revolution, while the father was fighting. But it was Washington who ordered that no one who was not a citizen be granted a field officer's commission, since, as important as the contributions of foreign officers were, their allegiance was to another nation, and to a monarch. John Jay, in the first four Federalist Papers, and the author of the note to Washington reminding him to require that the president be a natural born citizen, warned of the dangers of foreign intrigue. It could have been a mistake? And while judicial review was a common-law principle, at had not yet been addressed as positive law (Vattel clearly enunciates the principle of juridical review).
While the left will deploy their usual misdirectors, Leo Donofrio has made clarity of the issue of natural born citizenship, an issue which many attorneys on the left understood correctly, because they went to such measures as to edit at least twenty six Supreme Court decisions to hide the citations to Minor v. Happersett accessible to those who use the Internet to find legal decisions - see Dianna Cotter's revelation of Justiagate or Donofrio's blog. The Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, erases any question of what is a natural born citizen, and the case was based upon Elizabeth Minor's having been born a natural born citizen, turning common-law, the source for virtually every definition in the Constitution, into "decided law," or “stare decisis.”
From Minor v. Happersett:
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,...
Mitt is a natural born citizen, much as I might prefer Alan West or Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, or even, with a few misgivings, Rick Santorum or Rick Perry, or Newt. We must and will unite behind one of them.
And what day and age was the Article II eligibility requirement written, and have they changed it anytime since?
Some would argue that the 14th amendment changed it, but Edge919 pointed out that in 1875, the Supreme court specifically said that 14th amendment citizenship was not the same thing as "natural born citizen."
If the 14th amendment didn't change the rules, neither did any subsequent amendment, and ONLY an Amendment can change the rule.
again there are only two types of citizen NOT three.
Yes, Male and Female. Other than that, there are numerous and sundry subcategories of the term "citizen." In any case, we aren't concerned with basic citizenship, we are concerned with a special kind of citizenship which is required for Article II eligibility, and that being the highest level of citizenship which knows no allegiance to any other nation.
Alexander Hamilton originally proposed using this language for what became Article II.
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
It was rejected in favor of the term of art "natural born citizen." If the meaning were the same, there would have been no point in rejecting Hamilton's language.
“no other allegiance.”
I’m open to suggestions on how that works, but nothing I can envision would seem to do it. I don’t think you can say that a person born in America as an American citizen is disqualified just because some other country has some law that says they could be a citizen of another country. Then you are effectively deferring to a foreign country who can run for President in this country. Maybe if someone applies for citizenship of some other country... But if that’s all we’re talking about, then I suppose most people would agree, and we would not have much to argue about.
…in this day and age that is laughable…
Sounds like "progressive" blather, my friend…
The constitution is no respecter of the "day and age".
It was providentially drafted by men with wisdom beyond their years for such a time as this. It's a hell of a document, worth reading.
Well, it is just one founder. His son, "John Quincy Adams" also owned the book, but he wasn't a founder.
Would it help you to understand better if I mentioned that John Adams was our Representative to the Hague during the Revolutionary war? He happened to live with a man named Charles Dumas during this period of his life.
You might not recognize the name, but Charles Dumas was the man that sent Benjamin Franklin three copies of Vattel's "Droit des Gens" (Law of Nations) in 1775. Charles Dumas was the publisher that had recently printed these copies with his own added footnotes. During the Several years that Adams stayed with Dumas, do you suppose they ever got around to discussing Vattel?
so it is misinterprited from two sources rather than just one. congrats.
More than that. Here is a link to a page from "The Common Law Common-placed (1733)"which says " And one born out of the King's Allegiance, coming and residing in England, his children born here are not aliens but Denizens."
Also the "Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary (1771)" (Heavily used in that time period) says: "All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions. (Cunningham, p.95, in section entitled "Aliens")"
I've got more, but I doubt you want to read them. If on the other hand, you feel like educating yourself on this issue, here is the link to the research thread.
You are welcome. Glad I could help. Spread the word!
Thinking this thru... Israel has a law which states that any Jew may apply for Israeli citizenship. Does that mean that no Jew may run for President of the United States?
Many countries use the rule of "Partus Sequitur Patrem" in defining their citizenship. This is such an old rule it has a Latin description. Indeed, it was used by the Romans and the Greeks. This rule was pretty much universal except for England, but by by the time of our Constitution the English were also using it. (I believe I read a snippet from Leo Donofrio's blog pointing out that England only adopted the "jus soli" rule to allow for the Ascension to the throne of a Royal with a foreign father. A bit of skullduggery if you will.)
The point is, the United States recognized a nation's claim on the offspring of its citizens as a very ubiquitous practice, and as such understood that it could lead to a dichotomy of Loyalty between this nation and another. By requiring that a citizen CANNOT be claimed under this universal rule they were insuring that issues of loyalty would be kept to a minimum.
In the 18th Century, it was common practice for Royalty to cross marry and cross rule. The Heads of Europe were all related by blood, and as a result it was not always certain as to where their loyalties lay. The Best way to insure against this kind of foreign intrigue was to be certain that none of our Executives had this kind of relationship with another country. If there could be no claim by blood or by soil, then there could be no foreign claim on our citizen's loyalty.
For most of our nation's existence, MOST of our citizens were born as "natural citizens." Why should we need to seek leaders among those who were not?
I may be mistaken, but I would suppose anyone (Goyem) could *APPLY* for Israeli citizenship. I think their point is that it would be automatically granted to persons of Jewish descent. Ireland and Italy also have this policy if I am not mistaken.
Being of a category that would immediately be accepted as a citizen is not the same thing as the nation being able to CLAIM YOU as a citizen. If a nation has you marked as a citizen, they may draft you in times of war. Obviously Israel, Ireland, and Italy (all "I's" How about that? :) ) would not grab Americans who were descended of ancestors from their nations because they have no ACTUAL claim on their allegiance.
I would suggest that if a nation can legally grab you to fight in their army, you a citizen of that nation. I would suspect that both Kenya and Indonesia could legally grab Obama and make him fight against us if they so chose. (Not now of course, but back when he was a nobody they certainly could have done so.)
“Being of a category that would immediately be accepted as a citizen is not the same thing as the nation being able to CLAIM YOU as a citizen.”
OK, so you are rejecting the notion that because Romney might have been able to seek Mexican citizenship, he’s disqualified.
Basically what you are saying is that if the Mexican government had a law that actually made him a Mexican citizen, then he would be disqualified. I can understand your argument, but I still think it’s pretty lame to suggest that our Constitution would disqualify someone just because of what the law of some other land says. Suppose Iran passed a law making Obama, Romney, and the entire GOP field citizens?
I guess we can laugh that then our problems are solved, but it doesn’t make any sense from a Constitutional standpoint.
Absolutely. Unless one of Romney's parents renounced his US Citizenship prior to his birth, Mitt Romney is a Natural born citizen as far as I can tell. I don't particularly care for him, (though I fear we are going to end up with him) but I am not questioning his eligibility to hold office. Jindal perhaps, and to a lesser degree Rubio, but I don't see Mitt being disqualified at all.
Basically what you are saying is that if the Mexican government had a law that actually made him a Mexican citizen, then he would be disqualified. I can understand your argument, but I still think it’s pretty lame to suggest that our Constitution would disqualify someone just because of what the law of some other land says. Suppose Iran passed a law making Obama, Romney, and the entire GOP field citizens?
If the law was based on a principle which the US recognizes, then yes. Jus soli is already recognized. If he was born in Mexico, then the Mexicans would have a claim that could be recognized. Were he born to Mexican Parents, we could recognize that claim as well. If he were both born in Mexico AND to Mexican parents, by what stretch could we even recognize him as one of our citizens?
If the Mexican law is based on the claim of having brown hair, that would not be recognized. It is a silly claim, as is also the claim of ancestry. MOST Americans have ancestors from some other country. To recognize such a claim as legitimate would allow for all our citizens to be seized by some country or another should they travel there.
No, our very existence relies on a refusal to recognize such claims as legitimate.
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.
