Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”
“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”
Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.
Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.
“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.
He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”
“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.
Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
But then again, I could be wrong.
There are judges who still do that? Who knew?
Happy First Birthday "Obama" LFBC forgery!
Not.
Every court that has looked at the issue agrees with me. Every member of Congress and all 50 states agree with me.
And the USA has never followed Vattel’s theory of citizenship by parentage. In the US, unlike Vattel’s Switzerland, citizenship is based on birth location.
That is how it worked in the colonies, and they continued to follow that rule without change. As the Supreme Court ruled:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Notice: THE SAME RULE. In the colonies, and it “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established”...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Yes, this “rule” was “in effect” for children born of loyal subjects who were thus born British subjects. The Treaty of 1783, however, separated out those who stayed subjects and those who became citizens of the U.S. by the adherence of the parents to whichever side they swore their allegiance. If this “rule” applied to all persons becoming citizens in the U.S., then there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Second, the “rule” contains a provision ... “aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England” ... the Ark court construes this to mean permanent residence in order to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. But that’s ONLY to qualify for citizenship by birth. The court clearly and decisively said the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Under both types of birth citizenship, Obama is EXCLUDED, and that’s IF he could actually legally prove he was born in the U.S., which up through today, the Kenyan coward refuses to do.
History has a funny way of playing ironic jokes on those who believe they're doing all of the writing.
If you find out anything at a local level, please don't hesitate to de-lurk again, to let us know what you discover.
I think you have put this issue to rest. THANK YOU!
I think Mr. Rogers, Post #103, pretty much takes the wind out of your sails. His reference makes for good reading. Maybe we can all get some rest around here on this issue and finally bury Vattel who seems to get far too much attention for no reason.
The problem [in understanding what the Framers meant by NBC], in a nutshell, is the pervasiveness of the liberal mindset. According to modern liberalism, the cardinal sin is discrimination. Thus, to deny to an innocent baby the right to occupy the Oval Office just because his/her parents are [or were] not US citizens strikes at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals simply cannot conceive of this as being what the Framers intended, and so they begin from a premise of ‘anybody born on the soil is A-Okay’.
This goes to an even more fundamental problem of modern liberalism: the absolute, total and abject inability to think outside the liberal mindset. I.e.: they can think like liberals, but cannot see or comprehend any issue from any other POV.
This is not just my opinion. There was a major study done a few years back that proved it. Researchers gathered a large group of conservatives and an equal group of libs. They handed out a detailed questionnaire, and asked the libs to answer ea. question as a conservative would, and vice versa.
The conservatives ACED it. I.e.: conservatives not only understand their POV, but they also grasp the essence of modern liberalism, and if asked, can answer in that mindset.
The libs failed miserably. ALL, and I mean *ALL* they have in their liberal reference point. W’in that is a weird, phony over-the-top caricature of what conservatives are, believe and think, and this they hold as true and accurate. [Thus, when Bill Clinton accused conservatives of doing and believing almost the opposite of what we do and believe, he wasn't (in this lone case) so much lying as revealing his inability to grasp true conservatism. Ditto Obama. People say he sets up ‘strawmen’ and knocks them down. The problem being, he doesn't know they're strawmen. He actually believes they accurately represent the other side. Creepy but true.]
This is, as I said, the essence of the NBC issue. Liberalism has become so pervasive in its presuppositions that even some conservatives buy it. I.e.: they cannot conceive of the Framers as people who cared nothing for ‘diversity is our strength’, who did NOT believe that discrimination [even against innocent babies] is wrong, and who did prioritize above all the protection of the Republic. As such, the Framers did NOT want the spawn of America's foreign enemies to occupy the one office in which they could do the greatest damage. However, libs and even some conservatives simply cannot envision the Framers as so exclusionary, and hence the idea that any baby popped out on Am. soil is what the Framers had in mind as a future POTUS.
There is no arguing w these people. This is because they simply CANNOT reason from a non-liberal foundation. In their minds, the idea that the Framers would discriminate against a baby just because of who its parents were is inconceivable. All their arguments proceed, consciously or unconsciously, from that premise. They cannot, even for sixty seconds, entertain the idea that perhaps the Framers actively wished to protect the Republic from the likes of Obama [yes, he personifies their worst fears of divided loyalty and the foreign ‘enemy within’]. Liberally-oriented thinkers resort to the idea that a baby could have a foreign father but turn out to be a great US patriot, as if that is a rational a argument. It misses the point by light years, but don't try to tell them that; you'll just waste your breath.
Anyway, I have to run. I probably expressed the above sub-optimally, but I don't have time to massage it. Thanks again for the post; it was much appreciated.
In other words, they would have most of the rights of other citizens. Sounds like two separate classes to me.
Being able to run for POTUS is an opportunity, not a right.
Sounds like two separate classes to me.
Doesn't sound like it to me. To me it sounds like you're trying to stir up "class warfare" just like a good liberal would.
So you have two babies born next to each other on the exact same day at Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego and you're telling me that one of these babies can aspire for the opportunity to run for President while the other baby cannot? Sounds like baby #1 has more "opportunities" than baby #2. You really think a Supreme Court Justice is going to support this? Not a single judge anywhere else has.
Doesn't sound like it to me. To me it sounds like you're trying to stir up "class warfare" just like a good liberal would.
Call it what you want. Separate classes of people is exactly what this is and there is no way in 2012 that SCOTUS would craft such a decision in the unlikely event one of these cases ever reaches their desk. Unlikely because the whole notion is so absurd that none of these cases ever get out of the starting gate.
Great post.
See exhibit A - post #115
Like clockwork. It’s almost like you planned it. LOL
These cases almost always start out in this manner. Then the judges fold like rag dolls.
I pray that God will raise up one good judge with a massive set of gonads.
Ah, yes. Except tht doesn’t explain the Supreme Court decision in 1898, which explored the meaning of NBC (from an original intent point of view) and concluded that everyone born in America, whose parents were not ambassadors or an invading army, was born a citizen - and that was the meaning of NBC.
I realize birthers disagree with that statement. However, every court, every state & every Congressman agrees.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
The Supreme Court didn’t distinguish between the meaning of NBC & the 14th. Instead, it said they meant the same thing - that with a few exceptions, anyone born in the USA was born a citizen. And if you are born a citizen - thus a natural born citizen - you can run for President. The dissent made note of that meaning:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
There is a reason the Supreme Court has rejected case after case, and why no court has demanded Obama’s removal - and it isn’t black helicopters, or midnight visits from special agents. It is because that is the settled opinion of the Supreme Court on what NBC meant to the Founders and ratifiers, in a decision that has gone unchallenged since 1898.
However, if you want to read a reasonable objection to what the Court decided, go to the link below and read the dissent.
From the dissent’s introduction:
“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule
was in force in all [p706] the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;
and
that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”
Dissent
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
I think this is the meat of the dissent:
“The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.
The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.”
Opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
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.