How Mitt Romney’s Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President

ABC News ^ | January 27, 2012 | Huma Khan

[James Thomas]

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, has been invoked on the campaign trail often.

Newt Gingrich used his release of 12 years’ of tax records as an example to push his rival to release his own tax returns. On Thursday night, Romney mentioned the fact that his father was born in Mexico in response to Gingrich’s allegations that he is “anti-immigrant,” which raises the question: If George Romney was born in Mexico, how could he run for president?

[Brown Deer]

He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court - should tell you something his legal skills.

Really? more foolish babble from you?

[Harlan1196]

So list his victories. Tell me of his great successes. I am all ears.

[Brown Deer]

You made the statement, "He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court", troll. So please, tell us all the juicy details about each of those cases.

This is good place to stop - have a good evening.

Really? What happened?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The problem with Natural Law is that no one can authoritatively say what it is. Or rather, that anyone can say it says anything they want. Hobbes identified 19 Natural Laws, but a two-parent requirement for natural-born citizenship wasn’t among them. Theologians argue that natural law is that ordained by God, but I doubt you can find a religious scholar anywhere who can find much Biblical support for a theory of the transmission of citizenship across generations one way or the other.

[Harlan1196]

You are right - he has led the birther one victory after another.

Donofrio v. Wells

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

Montgomery Blair Sibley quo warranto (based on his “analysis”>

AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.

I don’t mind answering real questions.

[Brown Deer]

You are right

About time you figured it out.

[philman_36]

By all means let's bring in Hobbes.

@The Elements of Law Natural and Politic / by Thomas Hobbes
Where shall we begin? How about @CHAPTER 16. Some of the Laws of Nature?

2. The breach or violation of covenant, is that which men call INJURY, consisting in some action or omission, which is therefore called UNJUST. For it is action or omission, without jus, or right; which was transferred or relinquished before. There is a great similitude between that we call injury, or injustice in the actions and conversations of men in the world, and that which is called absurd in the arguments and disputations of the Schools. For as he, that is driven to contradict an assertion by him before maintained, is said to be reduced to an absurdity; so he that through passion doth, or omitteth that which before by covenant he promised not to do, or not to omit, is said to commit injustice. And there is in every breach of covenant a contradiction properly so called; for he that covenanteth, willeth to do, or omit, in the time to come; and he that doth any action, willeth it in that present, which is part of the future time, contained in the covenant: and therefore he that violateth a covenant, willeth the doing and the not doing of the same thing, at the same time; which is a plain contradiction. And so injury is an absurdity of conversation, as absurdity is a kind of injustice in disputation.

[philman_36]

You ought to appreciate this from Hobbes... 9. And in this precept of nature. is included and comprehended also this, That a man forgive and pardon him that hath done him wrong, upon his repentance, and caution for the future. For PARDON is peace granted to him, that (having provoked to war) demandeth it. It is not therefore charity, but fear, when a man giveth peace to him that repenteth not, nor giveth caution for maintaining thereof in the time to come. For he that repenteth not, remaineth with the affection of an enemy; as also doth he that refuseth to give caution, and consequently is presumed not to seek after peace, but advantage. And therefore to forgive him is not commanded in this law of nature, nor is charity, but may sometimes be prudence. Otherwise, not to pardon upon repentance and caution, considering men cannot abstain from provoking one another, is never to give peace; and that is against the general definition of the law of nature.

I rejected your apology as I knew it to be insincere. I was merely being prudent.

[little jeremiah]

Who the hell are you to tell either Brown Deer or me to shut up?

I agree that you are a mentally ill stewed in anger and delusion 0bama a** kissing Fogbow retread troll. Either on doc prescribed psych meds and/or self medication with weed/alcohol.

:-)

[philman_36]

Hobbes identified 19 Natural Laws, but a two-parent requirement for natural-born citizenship wasn’t among them.

Oh well, getting directly to your point...pay attention to the emphasis.
@CHAPTER 17. Other Laws of Nature

1. THE question, which is the better man, is determinable only in the estate of government and policy, though it be mistaken for a question of nature, not only by ignorant men, that think one man's blood better than another's by nature; but also by him, whose opinions are at this day, and in these parts of greater authority than any other human writings (Aristotle). For he putteth so much difference between the powers of men by nature, that he doubteth not to set down, as the ground of all his politics, that some men are by nature worthy to govern, and others by nature ought to serve. Which foundation hath not only weakened the whole frame of his politics, but hath also given men colour and pretences, whereby to disturb and hinder the peace of one another. For though there were such a difference of nature, that master and servant were not by consent of men, but by inherent virtue; yet who hath that eminency of virtue, above others, and who is so stupid as not to govern himself, shall never be agreed upon amongst men; who do every one naturally think himself as able, at the least, to govern another, as another to govern him. And when there was any contention between the finer and the coarser wits, (as there hath been often in times of sedition and civil war) for the most part these latter carried away the victory and as long as men arrogate to themselves more honour than they give to others, it cannot be imagined how they can possibly live in peace: and consequently we are to suppose, that for peace sake, nature hath ordained this law, That every man acknowledge other for his equal. And the breach of this law, is that we call PRIDE.

Be sure you don't confuse the right of nature and the law of nature.

[little jeremiah]

Very sound advice!

[philman_36]

I like Hobbes. He’s archaic in his writing and it takes a lot to “grok” him.

[little jeremiah]

Being the illiterate that I am, my sole knowledge of “Hobbes” is “Calvin and Hobbes”. I mean, I knew that some philosopher/think was named Hobbes, but that quote is the first thing I’ve read that he wrote, and I grok it right well. Makes me want to try a bit more of the original Hobbes.

[philman_36]

You need to check out some of his quotes as well then.
@Thomas Hobbes quotes
Curiosity is the lust of the mind.

I lust greatly, and daily.

[little jeremiah]

Well, I’d say there are two kinds of curiosity - “idle” curiosity, sort of like scratching an itch, and then the thirst for truth, which is more akin to quenching a need of the deeper being.

[Spaulding]

"See Stephen E. Sach’s companion article, Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth. Ironically, if McCain was born on Panamanian territory outside the Canal Zone, he would indeed have been a citizen from birth, according to Chin's reading — which is pretty much the opposite from what many of us assumed at the time."

Thanks x. The more knowledgeable people and honest questioners respond, the closer to truth we'll come.

I, of course, said that Professor Chin was a Democrat, by which I meant that his analysis had several glaring omissions. As I pointed out, not mentioning the precedent so clearly established by Minor v. Happersett is about as clear a signal as a writer can provide, since any discussion of “Birthright citizenship” must dispense with Chief Justice Waite's clear collision with what seems an intentional misinterpretation that “Birthright” citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. Since Waite, along with dozens of other justices, makes natural born citizenship “born on our soil of citizen parents,” then what is “Birthright citizenship.”?

Having seen a number of interpretations, what counts is that it is not defined in the Constitution or by precedent. Many claim, at odds with Minor, that a “Birthright citizen” is either a jus soli - of the soil - or jus sanguinis - of the blood implying citizen parents, but not both. That is not the law. A natural born citizen must satisfy both conditions, jus soli and jus sanguinis. That is why Justice Waite and Judge Bingham described the definition as "never doubted." After all, someone could be born on our soil to at least one alien parent, raised overseas, and may not even speak English, but be a "Birthright citizen." One may be born to citizen parents, overseas, raised overseas and have acquired allegiance to a foreign culture and laws, but be a "Birthright citizen". Marie Elg was born in New York to naturalized Swedish parents, but raised in Sweden. When she was twenty one she knew she wanted to make the U.S. her home, and our secretary of state didn't understand Minor v. Happersett.

Thanks to judicial review, and Chief Justice Hughes, our state department was informed that someone naturally born a citizen is always a citizen, unlike any other class of citizen. There are all sorts of laws governing the circumstance which cause a citizen to lose citizenship. No law can affect natural born citizenship. Since our State Department disagreed, Marie Elg's case went to our final appeals court and Marie Elg was admitted back into the U.S. from Sweden, and informed that if she chose, after 14 years residence and reaching the age of 35, she could run for for the presidency.

Thank you for the reference to the Stephen Sachs article. About the article let me first observe that it only confirms my argument that McCain's status was uncertain. While we are mostly concerned with Obama (and indirectly with Romney's grandfather, which argument seems to have been dealt with satisfactorily, Sachs thesis is that John McCain was born a statutory citizen, not a natural born citizen. I will read the details of Stephen Sachs article carefully, but wanted to respond to your thoughtful reply before it disappears into archives which, unlike Google’s Wayback Machine, will be forgotten, but not scrubbed or blocked.

As with Wong Kim Ark, which contains many irrelevant threads of argument, it is useful to look at Sach’s conclusion. “The balance of that evidence suggests that John McCain was a citizen at birth.” So, while I find some foggery in Sach’s argumentation, his disagreement is with Chin's assertion that McCain seems not to have been born a citizen at all, a question many have raised regarding Barack Obama, since Obama’s State Department records were “cauterized” in 2008 and the perpetrator, while a cooperating witness, acquired a bullet in his head while sitting in front of his church, rendering his citizenship status unverifiable.

Sach’s research into the labyrinth of citizenship statutes may be correct, but having been born a citizen by statute defines McCain as a naturalized citizen, and not eligible by Article II. Our framers certainly understood the capabilities of clever barristers, which is probably why they took Presidential eligibility requirements out of the hands of the legislature. The British didn't need to think much about jus sanguinis since it was built into their monarchial form of government. Our "king" need only have bloodlines from citizen parents, regardless of where they were born. The British required that their legislators (Parliament) consist only of natural born subjects, but Calvin's law made the foreign born children of British Subjects into natural born subjects. British common law was not U.S. common law, though Justice Gray of Wong Kim Ark, spent much of his decision writing about British law.

Just a quick read of Sach’s article reveals another bit of artifice which you will find in Larry Tribe and Ted Olson's work for the Obama campaign committee in their letter to the Resolution 511 hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee in April of 2008. Sach’s mentions the 1790 Naturalization Act and mention that it was superseded by the 1795 and 1802 Acts, but not that the 1790 Act explicitly removed the language of the 1790 Act, including the term natural born citizen. NBC never again appears in the U.S. Code (there may be a recent citation mentioned in a Leo Donofrio article, but not having read it yet, I'll stick with "never.") Sach’s conclusion could be interpreted by those so inclined as to clarify “limits and jurisdiction” as it applies to natural born citizens. Of course, Sach’s doesn't do that. He is only, and correctly, referring to citizens.

Neither McCain nor Obama are eligible until the court reinterprets Minor v. Happersett, which is why Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud were willing to put their reputations on the line to hide the truth by “mangling” citations to Minor v. Happersett. I suspect that every law school will follow the guidance of Professor Robert Berring, who subtly warned Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud at the Soros’ sponsored (one of the sponsors, as confirmed by Carl Malamud's "Law.gov" sign, Malamud being the Center for American Progress CIO) symposium, that he assigns his students the task of comparing the accuracy of the cases they acquire from the free sites, Justia, Findlaw, and others (Stanley founded both of them), to those obtained at the fee-for-service sites, Lexus and Westlaw. (Berkeley Law.Gov Workshop - Part 5, on YouTube) Of course Obama will find a way to reward Stanley and Malamud,but dishonesty and freedom conflict, so even they may someday be sorry. Were I still in the venture business, while it is about money, it is also about trust, and both Stanley and Malamud have shown that their ideals and probably their profits trump the law. A few still believe there is integrity in the law. Lawyers (Stanley graduated from Harvard Law about the time Obama was there) should be smart enough to construct convincing arguments without requiring that the foundations, the axioms, be altered to support their thesis.

[philman_36]

I was woken up and couldn't get back to sleep so I decided to do some catch up reading and chose your references.

Thanks for the mentions.
@Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship

I found Lawrence B. Solum's inclusion of "ORIGINALISM AND THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE" in the .pdf rather humorous as he's wafted back and forth on the issue several times. I found the following from the introduction of Daniel P. Tokaji's in "THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY: MAY COURTS DECIDE WHO CAN BE PRESIDENT?" to be almost prophetic in laying out the various means of challenging eligibility.

That does not mean that all hope is lost for those seeking to challenge the eligibility of John McCain, Barack Obama, or future presidential candidates. There are other avenues through which the issue might be adjudicated. The most plausible is an action in state court challenging an allegedly ineligible candidate’s access to the ballot, which would not present the same justiciability obstacles. Though state-court challenges to a presidential candidate’s eligibility raise concerns about consistency and political bias, the U.S. Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in such cases would provide a check against such abuses.

[Kansas58]

Please do not conflate your personal, narrow opinion to “the rule of law” -—

The majority of opinion, even in Conservative circles, believes that “natural born citizen” means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.

---

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

[Kansas58]

Congress has as much of a right and duty to interpret the Constitution as the Courts.

Congress has defined Citizenship issues, several times.

Congress has every right to define the rules for Natural Born AND Naturalized citizenship, the only two forms of Citizenship available, in our country.

[Kansas58]

You come off like a paranoid hack.

The majority of the conservative movement thinks the birther stuff is a waste of time.

However? YOU call anyone and everyone who challenges you an “Obot” or a “communist” or some other ridiculous charge.

The vast majority of those who voted against Obama think you are wrong on this stuff.