Arpaio: I briefed Santorum on birth certificate investigation

CNN ^ | 02/21/12 | Jim Acosta

[writer33]

Phoenix (CNN) – Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, briefed GOP contender Rick Santorum on his investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate, the controversial law enforcement official told reporters Tuesday.

After a speech to a Republican gathering in Phoenix where Santorum appeared earlier in the day, Arpaio explained he wanted to inform the candidate of his investigation "as a matter of fairness in case he wouldn't want me to support him."

Arpaio said he plans to endorse one of the four remaining GOP candidates in the coming weeks. But the sheriff added he would not make his choice known before he announces the findings of his birth certificate probe at a news conference set for March 1st. This endorsement would be his second in the race; in November 2011, he endorsed then-candidate Rick Perry.

[philman_36]

If the Sheriff is wise, he will confine his investigation to the facts and leave the con-law to the Court.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

If he does so, nothing he uncovers will be relevant to any candidate's likely VP choice. If he doesn't he will rightly be written off as a wacko.
Many already write him off as a "wacko" so what has he got to lose either way?

[cynwoody]

So how does a child, though born a citizen, become a natural born citizen?

By definition. Duh!

NBC simply means citizen by birthright. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kansas58]

“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

[philman_36]

NBC simply means citizen by birthright.
Nice switch and ploy! So does that "right" come through natural law or positive law?

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship:

---

Mr. MADISON.—I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentlemanis eligible to a seat in this House or not; but it will depend on the decision of a previous question,whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, onthe declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he hasforfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of hiselection to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carulina, so far as they can guide us; and wherethe laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far asthey are applicable to the present case.It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.”

[Kansas58]

Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship:

---

Mr. MADISON.—I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentlemanis eligible to a seat in this House or not; but it will depend on the decision of a previous question,whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, onthe declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he hasforfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of hiselection to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carulina, so far as they can guide us; and wherethe laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far asthey are applicable to the present case.It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.”

[cynwoody]

How does two citizen parent prevent a child from growing up to be an marxist loving anti- American?

Excellent question.

There is certainly no shortage of natural born citizens who hate what is good about this country.

Case in point: Zero's neighbor and probable ghost writer, Billy Ayers!

[philman_36]

I've read it many times.

Madison clearly stated that Congress had the ability to define Citizenship.
I agree that Congress has the ability to define Citizenship when it pertains to naturalization.

Where does Madison specifically say Congress has the ability, or the authority, to define a natural born citizen?

[Kansas58]

Well, Congress HAS done so.

It is water under the bridge.

Congress has an absolute right and duty to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.

In order for Congress to make laws concerning Naturalization, Congress FIRST had to decide who was, automatically, a Citizen from the moment of birth.

[philman_36]

Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship

Congress can only pass legislation pertaining to naturalization!
How can you not comprehend such a simple concept?

[cynwoody]

Where does Madison specifically say Congress has the ability, or the authority, to define a natural born citizen?

Congress does not. If a kid is entitled to citizenship by birth, he's natural born. Period.

Due to the Fourteenth, Congress's authority only applies to babies born abroad (and to naturalization).

At the time Obama was born, the Fourteenth was in effect. Therefore, if he was born in Honolulu, he's natural born. However, if he was born in Mombasa (or Canada, or wherever), then his status is up to Congress (the Congress at the time, that is). If his momma was legally married to BHO, Sr., then he's not eligible, due to an obscure age requirement. However, she could not have been so married, since BHO, Sr, was already married, and the US does not recognize bigamous marriage. Therefore, she would indeed have been able to pass on citizenship to her little bastard. Thus, Zero skates, even if not born in the US! LOL!

[philman_36]

Well, Congress HAS done so.
What has Congress done?

In order for Congress to make laws concerning Naturalization, Congress FIRST had to decide who was, automatically, a Citizen from the moment of birth.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Any law covering naturalization could only cover those who weren't citizens to begin with!

[philman_36]

NBC simply means citizen by birthright.
Nice switch and ploy! So does that "right" come through natural law or positive law?

If a kid is entitled to citizenship by birth, he's natural born. Period.
OMG! Your own words give you away.

@entitlement
An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law.

By positive law, not natural law! Positive law is legislation! Congress can only pass laws on naturalization.

@positive law
Those laws that have been duly enacted by a properly instituted and popularly recognized branch of government.

[cynwoody]

Entitlement to citizenship is not the same thing as entitlement to welfare or food stamps or social security or medicare (but I repeat myself).

[philman_36]

Let me ask you this...
Is your right to free speech a positive law or a law of nature?

[philman_36]

Entitlement to citizenship is not the same thing as entitlement to welfare or food stamps or social security or medicare (but I repeat myself).

Is an entitlement enacted through a law or legislation?

[cynwoody]

Is your right to free speech a positive law or a law of nature?

A law of nature, obviously, superfluously guaranteed by the First Amendment. (See Jefferson on the Tree of Liberty)

[cynwoody]

Is an entitlement enacted through a law or legislation?

I use the term in the generic legal sense, not the 'Rat vote-buying sense.

IOW, if you are born in the US, you are entitled, as a matter of Constitutional law, to be a natural born citizen. You are not entitled to a living, however, that being the 'Rat sense of the word.

[philman_36]

A law of nature, obviously, superfluously guaranteed by the First Amendment.

And just like the freedom of speech is a natural law a natural born citizen is a product of the law of nature, not positive law.

No law (legislation) can abridge your freedom of speech, even if one were to be passed, and no law can make someone a natural born citizen as that state of being is also a natural law.

Citizen parents is the core principle of the natural law of being a natural born citizen.

[philman_36]

I use the term in the generic legal sense, not the 'Rat vote-buying sense.
There is no such thing as a "general" sense when discussing legal issues!
There is a definitive legal definition and that's it!

So try again...
Is an entitlement enacted through a law or legislation?