Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
For every fact I cite about Obama, you come back w a hypothetical. Obama has demonstrated over and over a total ignorance of America. No, I didn’t cite a list of “gaffes”. It wasn’t a “gaffe” when Obama cradled his hands in front of his genitals during the playing of the National Anthem. It was something a foreigner would do. You say an NBC could do it too. Fine. Cite one, just ONE, POTUS prior to Obama who did it. Just one.
No hypotheticals this time. I gave you a list of FACTS demonostrating that Obama acts like a foreigner—and like a foreigner who hates the USA. You come back w your fairytale stories of how NBCs could do that too. Get out of your make-believeland and into reality. Cite an actual example of a president w two citizen parents who did any of the things Obama has done. I’ll be waiting.
I also note you are acting like a complete liberal re: the term ‘magical’. I pointed out how stupid a usage it was, and you said it got to me. I’ve never met a conservative who argued that way. Only liberals.
You are citizens not of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions.
And once again you deny natural law when, and as, you choose.
To believe what you say then you have to believe...
My ability to keep and bear arms isn't of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions and positive laws.
You don't believe that, as you've indicated...
Section 1401 of Obamacare....
“So Section 1401 of the law [§1401\36B(c)(2)(C)(i)] states that employer-sponsored coverage is “unaffordable” if the required premium “exceeds 9.5 percent of the applicable taxpayer’s household income.”
1401
Jul 9th - Mongol monarch Timur Lenk destroys Baghdad
http://www.historyorb.com/events/date/1401
“In 1401, under Barquq’s successor, his son Faraj, Ibn Khaldun took part in a military campaign against the Mongol conqueror Timur, who besieged Damascus.”
http://baheyeldin.com/history/ibn-khaldun.html
(See “The Muqaddimah” Ibn Khaldun)
Somewhere, there is a discussion of ‘year 0’ of the hijri calendar. I don’t remember what the corresponding year of the Gregorian calendar was, but it is connected to this, and it is hard to find........
“I haven’t argued anywhere that it doesn’t establish the children’s status. You going back to it time after time isn’t going to change what I didn’t say into something I did say.”
I haven’t changed what you said. We both agree that you agree it establishes their status. I was using that to move on the nexct point, which is that obviously if it establishes their status it applies to them. It’s their status, after all.
“What can’t you grasp about that?!”
Um, everything?
“That’s like saying a child who isn’t of an age to drive is responsible for their parent’s speeding simply because they’re in the car”
no it isn’t. Your example has as much bearing on the argument as me saying “That’s like saying apples baseball submarine Herny Kissinger toilet seat babies.”
“The law applies to the driver, not the passenger.”
Yes, that’s because the law is about the driver. A law controlling citizenship status from birth, contrariwise, is more about the child than the parent, given that they are the ones with the status. Are you trying to say citizenship from birth is like being in a speeding car as a passenger? Like, it’s an objective fact that you were speeding, though anti-speeding laws don’t apply to you. Just like how the law applies only to the parents, somehow, even though the children are the ones who aqcuire the status.
“No, the law states when they become citizens, that being at birth.”
Distinction without a difference.
“They can’t be citizens until they’re born you dolt!”
So what? How does that mean the law doesn’t apply to them when they are born?
“It doesn’t take effect until after they’re born”
You just said they’re not citizens until they’re born. Being born citizens, as they are, their citizenship comes simultaneously with their birth. They’re born, and—bam!—they’re citizens. There is no lag.
You do agree that children born to an alien parent and qualifying according to the conditions laid out in the law are born citizens, don’t you? Then how can you possibly say it isn’t until after they’re born? Do you know what it means to be born a citizen? Just that: to be born a citizen.
“meaning before they’re citizens”
That makes absolutely no sense. Born citizens are not ever anything but citizens once they are born. Not a few seconds after they’re born, not a week after they’re born. As soon as they’re born. There is no lacuna of indeterminacy.
“Thus, the law is applicable upon the children of aliens and applies to”
Because of the lacuna theory? Oh, well, I knew there must have been a reason, however unreasonable.
You probably can't conceive that slavery predated civilization either as there were no laws against it since "civilization" hadn't been established to make it morally wrong or criminal.
“It’s saying, ‘Hey, driver, the speed limit is 30 MPH. If you don’t want a ticket don’t speed. If you do a fine will be levied.’
In other words...If you’re here legally and you have a child here they’re going to have U. S. citizenship whether you want them to or not.”
That’s what it says to the parents. What does it say to the child? That if his parents meet the criteria, it is a citizen. Why are you restricting yourself to the parents’ perspective? The law may not be comprehensible to the child, but it will control his future, and therefore does apply to it.
“Where does the law say that? Can a law apply to a person who isn’t born? How is that possible?”
That isn’t possible. It can, and does, apply to people upon being born. Apparently you think that because they can’t read it and be advised of consequences, like the parents, before being born, it somehow doesn’t apply to them. But you don’t have to read a law for it to be applicable. That’s why ignorance of the law is no excuse. It’ll apply to you whether it’s said “Hey” to you or not.
Tell me the difference, oh you John Marshall, you.
Your reply is all the answer I need to know that I'm right and you know it.
Yes, that’s because the law is about the driver.
Just like the law in question is about the parents!
In other words...if the alien parent doesn't want the child to have U.S citizenship then don't let it be born here.
You just said they’re not citizens until they’re born. Being born citizens, as they are, their citizenship comes simultaneously with their birth.
The child has no control over where it's born. The parent does!
How obtuse can you get?!
The Constitution clearly says Natural Born Citizen. All other references are to Citizens. So the original "intent" was for the president to be born of two citizen parents and that's EXACTLY what the constitution says. Now if you want to start arguing what the meaning of "is" is then you might falsely believe that Obama is eligible and slick willie did not actually have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
“Your statement is what is idiotic. One is a citizen through natural law, not ‘of’ natural law.”
One is many things through natural law, but not a citizen. Like I said, citizenship requires something to be a citizen of, and the custom and positive law to create that something does not exist by nature.
Besides, the way you phrased yourself, apparently as a result of misreading my post, you said one can be a citizen “of” natural law. Those were your words, not mine.
“And once again you deny natural law when, and as, you choose”
Who says it’s my choice. You assume, but I don’t see why I couldn’t accuse you of the same dishonesty, in the absence of verifiable knowledge. It seems pretty convenient, to me, for this suddenly to become such an issue for people otherwise looking for anything to use against a president they hate. Not that that’s how you’re using it, but, again, I could just as easily accuse you of it as you accuse me.
How do you know, by the way, that affirming the right to bear arms is to my liking? How do you know I care about guns, particularly, aside from that I’m posting on a conservative site. How do you know I wouldn’t really, really love something to use against Obama that would demand his removal from office? I’d love to kick him out. My interests flow in the opposite direction from my principles in this case.
I deny natural law when it doesn’t apply, as to being a citizen of a particular modern organized state under a particular constitution. You admit that natural law doesn’t apply to everything, hence the need for positive law. I agree. One of the things positive law provides us with is something to be a citizen of.
“To believe what you say then you have to believe...
My ability to keep and bear arms isn’t of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions and positive laws.”
Failed analogy, different matters. I don’t need a government to have the right to bear arms. It would be convenient to have someone to proect it, but it’s not necessary. The right remains, even if all the guns in the world were stripped of their rightful owners.
Being a citizen of a government, contrariwise, demands that there be a government to be a citizen of. It’s not inconvenient to be a citizen by nature alone: it’s impossible.
“You don’t believe that, as you’ve indicated...
@Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms.”
True, I don’t believe that. I do believe, though, that you do not have the natural right to be a citizen of the U.S. You have a right only because of positive law. It is a positive right more firmly grounded than the “right” to collective bargaining. But it depends on there being a U.S. Constitution nonetheless.
Not only Arthur, but James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and possibly Andrew Johnson all were born to at least one non-citizen parent.
That isn’t possible.
Yet you continue to argue that it is possible! Amazing!
It can, and does, apply to people upon being born.
But...but...you just said that isn't possible!
And since they're citizens, since they're already born, then how can a law dealing with aliens and nationality govern them as they're not, and never were, aliens and their nationality is already established as being legal citizens?
I would agree that it's "applicable upon" them when they're born, but I can't agree that it "applies to" them either before, or after, they're born.
It will always "apply to" the alien parents.
If you don't want to your kid to gain automatic U.S. citizenship while you are legally in this nation then get out before the delivery date.
“You probably can’t conceive that slavery predated civilization either as there were no laws against it since ‘civilization’ hadn’t been established to make it morally wrong or criminal.”
I said I was done, but since this is a somewhat fresh issue, let me school you.
Slavery may have existed in pre-civilized times, though not in the way we mean it, not for extended periods, and not in a systematic manner. Hunter-gatherer societies are more likely to kill or leave stranded men they’ve conquered, as they have no use for slaves. Seriously, how do you keep someone in lower status if there is no division of labor—aside from those established along gender and age lines? You don’t. They run away.
Same with pastoral people. They possibly have some division of labor, though largely it is the same as with hunter-gatherers, i.e. along gender and age lines. They can’t prevent escape, either.
Slavery doesn’t come into its own before the herders adopt it. They can use slaves, and they can hunt slaves. They can settle slaves along with the rest of the farmers they’ve subdued, and draw tribute from them. No previous group can manage that.
“I gave you a list of FACTS demonostrating that Obama acts like a foreigner”
They are facts, but I don’t think it demonstrates that he wasn’t born a citizen. I could see a foreigner acting that way, or a naturalized citizen, or a natural born citizen. The point has not been demonstrated, despite your insistence.
“re: the term ‘magical’. I pointed out how stupid a usage it was, and you said it got to me. I’ve never met a conservative who argued that way. Only liberals.”
For the record, I maintain it got to you because it was accurate.
“Your reply is all the answer I need to know that I’m right and you know it.”
No, honestly I have no idea what you mean. Your rain and speeding metaphors haven’t clarified it for me.
Thanks, Smokey. I find that simply posting that, saves me hundreds of words of explanation and argument :-)
According to Wikipedia, his father emigrated from Ireland in 1783. That makes his father a citizen at the time of ratification in 1789. I don't see any information about his mother, other than that she is of Irish descent.
-PJ
I was teasing you. I often have no point to make.
“It’s applicable on the child. It applies to the alien parents.”
I still don’t understand the difference. I also don’t understand, way back when this all started, you insisted on saying the law only applies to aliens when clearly it is “applicable upon” citizen children. Couldn’t you have mentioned it was applicable upon citizens from the start and saved us a lot of trouble?
“Just like the law in question is about the parents!”
It’s about the parents insofar as it’s about their children. It’s about the children citizens, as you’ve admitted it establishes their citizenship status and is “applicable upon” them.
“In other words...if the alien parent doesn’t want the child to have U.S citizenship then don’t let it be born here.”
Also, if the child is born here it will have citizenship status for as long as it doesn’t renounce it. Which kinda sorta almost maybe...no, wait, definitely means it applies to the children.
“The child has no control over where it’s born. The parent does!”
So what? No natural born citizens have control over where they’re born. That doesn’t mean laws controlling their status don’t apply to them.
“How obtuse can you get?!”
Not as obtuse as thinking that means the law doesn’t apply to them. Your thinking the law applies only to parents because they’re the only ones who can do anything about it before the child is born is the epitome of obtuseness.
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.