Mr. Jersey cites a circuit court decision (US v. Rhodes) which never mentions natural born citizenship. This is a familiar ploy. Knowing that few will bite on the wild goose chase, some will assume that those official sounding citations mean something. If readers note that natural born citizens are not mentioned, and realize that only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, they won't bother, and should probably dismiss everything New Jersey says. The authoritative sounding citations can discourage those who haven't seen this nonsense before.
Then he proceeds to Wong Kim Ark, a favorite playground for Obots. Skip Horace Gray's tour through English Common Law. It is irrelevant. Jump to the last paragraph. Wong Kim, the San Francisco born son of parents who were almost citizens, "domiciled residents", prevented from immigrating by Chinese law. They would almost certainly have chosen naturalization but would have faced death for violating Chinese law, was made a citizen - not natural born, but a 14th Amendment citizen. or, using the same words and language Obama used to describe his own citizenship, “A native-born citizen of the U.S.” A “native-born citizen” is born on our land, but not to citizens.
The 14th Amendment was written to make slaves into citizens. The children of naturalized slaves would then be natural-born. Wong Kim and Obama and Rubio are all naturalized - native-born - citizens, and not natural born, and not eligible to the presidency.
The nonsensical allegation that English Common Law and US common-law are almost synonymous was probably Horace Gray's effort to provide cover for himself and his patron, Chester Arthur, in case Chester's ineligibility was discovered. Chester too hid his birth certificate, and lied frequently about where his mother was born, and when, to tantalize his enemies, and keep them searching for grounds for ineligibility in the wrong places. Arthur's father's naturalization papers were not discovered until December 2008 when Leo Donofrio, poring over material collected by the last Arthur biographer, found the naturalization papers. The author who had collected the material was ashamed that he had not noticed, but he didn't have a reason to pay attention. Everyone knew Arthur's minister father was born in Ireland, but nobody had thought to ask when he became a U.S. citizen, and declared, like all naturalized citizens, sole allegiance to our Constitution. Arthur had all his personal papers burned just before he died.
Justice Gray, known as an excellent judicial historian, cited Minor v. Happersett, and couldn't have written a decision controverting Minor without doing so explicitly. That would have required replacing the definition made precedent in Minor. He didn't!
Without ever citing the common-law definition cited by Chief Justice John Marshall who credits Vattel, C.J. Marshall's and C.J. Waite's definitions are the same, born on the soil to parents who were its citizens. Justice Gray never contested that definition. Gray's decision is based, as he makes clear, on the 14th Amendment, whose author, John Bingham who uses essentially the same definition for natural born citizen in his addresses to the House, and never mentions, nor changes, the definition he recites to the House in 1866: "...born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
Then Mr Jersey cites a congressman who likes Blackstone. Congressmen, of course, unless they succeed in getting an amendment passed, have no authority to interpret the Constitution. Blackstone, while he was a professor, was an editor of volumes and volumes of English Common Law which are considered by many the most authoritative collection of that often internally inconsistent body of ideas. To see in how little regard our framers and justices held English common-law, from which they fought a revolution to escape, read Justice James Wilson's Lectures on The Law. Few will have time, of course, and Thomas Paine is more fun, and destroys any notion that our framers held English law as an example.
Here are a few paragraphs, sent personally by Thomas Paine to Washingto and Lafyette, dealing with “The Rights of Man”, and describing some of the differences between English law and the U.S. Constitution (there being no real English constitution) - from 1792 (and with thanks to the FR contributer who introduced many of us to this passage):
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
When Paine points out that the president must be a “native”, he is using the common-language term, later legally associated by Chief Justice Waite, which also means “natural born citizen.” When he explains that the King is often a “foreigner” and at least “half a foreigner”. Our executive must be a “native”, not “native-born”, but a native, or Paine would have said that. Again, “native-born” or jus soli citizenship implies being born, like Wong Kim, on our soil, but to one or more alien parents. Our president satisfies both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship because natural law presumes that the child inherits the allegiance of his parents.
Paine also notes that the King, half a foreigner, having been born to a foreign mother or father, is not eligible to be a Member of Parliament because one of his parents was not a subject. Not a monarchy, we do require that the chief executive be born to citizens, but, unlike England, allow naturalized citizens to hold every other office.
Few of us believe politicians and their media will acknowledge these truths. If we retain 1st Amendment rights, we will communicate the truth to enough citizens, who are seeing how critical allegiance to our Constitution is to our survival and quality of life, that we will restore respect for law. There is truth in the honest observation by SEIU’s former president Andy Stern: “We will rule by the power of persuasion until that doesn't work; then we'll use the persuasion of power.”
There is the honest admission by Barack Obama, on his “Fightthesmears.com” web site for several years, that he is a naturalized citizen. He never lied. He never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He was one of the signees of Senate Res 511, and knows that constituitonal eligibility requires citizen parents. He clearly determined that he had the political capital, and press support, to ignore it. Barack was honest when he said the the Constitution was of limited use, not allowing him to do many of the things he thought society needed. He talked about a new bill of rights. But many of us prefer our Constitution to a Marxist autocracy - a Castro or Chavez or Erdogan or Ahmadinejad government. Just how many only time will tell.
Fact is, there is not ONE judge or politician that actually believes the tripe birthers put out. The evidence on your side is nonexistent and the evidence going the other way is overwhelming. You people ARE the definition of insanity.
You say, “Mr. Jersey cites a circuit court decision (US v. Rhodes) which never mentions natural born citizenship.” What is it you don’t understand about
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
I think Rhodes hits the nail right on the head.
You mention Minor as if that means something while totally disregarding a recent ruling about Minor which reads:
“[Supreme Court] precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“, Is this more of your conspiracy theory?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint. THIS IS A MUST READ!
What about this?
“Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen,
Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, pg. 4664 (1904)
What about this?
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
or this?
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
And finally this which tosses out Vattel completely.
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
Come up with ONE legitimate and authorative citation that clearly establishes that NBC requires citizen parents and you will win the day. If you cannot then everyone reading this will know your agenda and say EPIC FAIL!
Spot on with your assessment of the obot tool.