Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
I apologize for butting in here because Mr. Rogers is perfectly capable of explaining this himself, but I do want to make a point.
Rides3: I believe Mr. Rogers holds that SCOTUS in US v. WKA declared WKA not to be a statutory citizen but a natural born citizen. I don’t know where you get statutory citizen from but you should get rid of that idea.
It is a fact that Natural Born Citizens are eligible to run for the office of the President of the United States. You certainly cannot deny that.
That was established in the Constitution and in US vs WKA.
I think you are concerned that SCOTUS didn’t actually come out and say specifically that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen. They did’t specifically say, “Ark is NBC.”
It is not necessary to specifically say “Wonk Kim Ark is a natural born citizen”. Logic is sufficient. When the Supreme Court said that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born–except for certain exceptions (foreign diplomat, etc); and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and none of the exceptions apply to him, then Wong Kim Ark fits into the category of Natural Born Citizen.
I can say Jimmy has blue eyes. I can further say that you need blue eyes to become president. I never said Jimmy is eligible to become president in actual words but logically Jimmy CAN be president because he has blue eye. LOGIC!
That is why all authorities accept US v WKA’s decision as precedent to dispel the two citizen parent crap that floats around clogging up the court system resulting in being tossed out. Sound logical to you?
Of the cases you listed only one: Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana pertains to Obama. That caase was not heard it was dismissed by both the Trial and Appeals court. So they did not actually find him NBC. The other cases are not about Zero they are from before he was born.
No. Here are Trumbull’s (Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee) own words on what both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause both mean, stated to Congress when the Senate Judiciary Committee was crafting the 14th Amendment:
“What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is right a foreign diplomat owes allegiance to the country he represents.
Madison says the same thing.
“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.”
Dear God, I hope so. It's what we've needed for years.
I am not wrong. If King George was in this country incognito for two years before July 4th, 1776 and became naturalized (two years was required in most colonies) and had a kid on July 3rd, 1776, my scenario plays out exactly as written.
Correction Two cases AZ and IN pertain both where dismissed not tried. The AZ case was only heard by the Superior Court so far.
“"The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens,”So the purpose of Trumbull's exclusion was avoid conferring citizenship on children of foreign diplomats.
I believe Mr. Rogers holds that SCOTUS in US v. WKA declared WKA not to be a statutory citizen but a natural born citizen.Not sure why anyone would hold that. SCOTUS ruled WKA "a citizen." He was never ruled a natural born citizen. I'll refer you again to the U.S. Government which as lately as 2011 stated very unequivocally that not all of those who are U.S. citizens at birth are considered to be natural born citizens for Constitutional purposes. If foreign allegiance at birth (via parentage and/or birthplace) didn't matter for Constitutional presidential eligibility purposes, there would be no reason for the Government to continue implying that it does in their officially published documents.
I can’t be responsible for the quotes or sources in the source I quoted.
You can’t deny MY source though; the Arizona judge flat out said Obummer IS a natural born citizen based on whatever sources you are claiming have nothing to do with it.
Sounds like an appeal would work in that case. Maybe the judge is an idiot with no understanding of the law - but I doubt it!
"...a foreign diplomat owes allegiance to the country he represents."Read the British Nationality Act of 1948. The DNC's "Fight the Smears" website directly stated that the BNA of 1948 governed the citizenship status of Obama Sr's children, including Obama. Obama owed allegiance to the UK at birth via his non-U.S. citizen father. Obama is ineligible for POTUS regardless of where he was born due to his allegiance at birth to the UK.
Byron York = sissy coward
His elite friends would dump him and he would have to find a new way to make a living - if he simply spoke the truth.
“In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
True. The State Department and law may go beyond what has been ruled on to date.
When BY wrote: “The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen...And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.”, he went well beyond what the court ruled in WKA.
For example, the WKA ruling DID make a point that WKA’s parents were “domiciled” in the US - something that I don’t think Obama Sr was. On that basis, I think a challenge could be mounted, although I don’t think at this point a ruling would go along, since it would remove a sitting President from office.
And WKA did not address those born overseas to two citizen parents, let alone to those born of ONE citizen parent overseas. In those areas, the public law goes beyond anything the US Supreme Court has ruled on.
Romney could pick Rubio and Obama could dump Biden in favor of Soros and then we’d be four for four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every law I've read says otherwise. If Obama was born on US soil the framers believed his allegiance is to the U.S.
Madison has said: “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.”
If you have a disagreement with the Father of the Constitution, take it up with him.
In the meantime I have cited many references to enforce the point of allegiance PLUS a court decision that says Obama IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
What is it you don’t understand in the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark where SCOTUS declared that EVERY person born on U.S. soil IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN whether a citizen or alien unless the seed of a foreign diplomat? That is established law. No judge will go against it. Live with it! Perhaps you should spend more time reading the decision. It’ll take several hours but you might learn something.
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.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.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.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
"Half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Thomas Jefferson's letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Minister's Association became the basis for interpreting the original intent of the Establishment Clause, even though Jefferson, too, was not a Framer of the Constitution, and the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Paine's 1791 book should be given the same historical significance in interpreting the original intent of the natural-born citizen clause.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution.
Also see this post for a series of dictionary definitions of native vs. natural that was in common usage at the time.
If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
Every law I've read says otherwise. If Obama was born on US soil the framers believed his allegiance is to the U.S.Definitely not true. US-born Native Americans were not even considered US citizens at birth until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Why? Because even though they were born on US soil, their allegiance was to a non-US nation so having been born on US soil was NOT enough to make them a US citizen or to expect allegiance to the US.
The Framers were very aware of the fact that location of birth alone does not command automatic allegiance. The Framers themselves co-existed with non-allegiant US-born Native Americans.
What is it you don’t understand in the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark where SCOTUS declared that EVERY person born on U.S. soil IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZENSCOTUS never declared that. Not sure why you think they did. Look at post 77. Native Americans who were born on US soil were not even considered US citizens at all until 1924... long after SCOTUS ruled in the WKA decision.
Until 1924 indians were never under the jurisdiction of the United States.
WKA made exceptions in their definition of NBC and indian was one of them. Do a word search for indian on the WKA case.
You are straying off the reservation aren't you?????
You say SCOTUS never declared that but they did:
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
WKA made exceptions in their definition of NBC and indian was one of them.Let's look at your post (75) again...
What is it you don’t understand in the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark where SCOTUS declared that EVERY person born on U.S. soil IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN whether a citizen or alien unless the seed of a foreign diplomatIt clearly doesn't declare that "EVERY person born on U.S. soil IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" and I've just proven how and why.
And let's look at what the WKA decision says about the exception for Indians... "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
And not subject to any foreign power...
Obama was born subject to a foreign power... the UK via his non-US citizen father, as openly admitted by the DNC's "Fight the Smears" website.
And the exclusion given the Native Americans were only for those who... That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance""had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question.
So, the exception is that even US-born Native Americans who had deliberately separated from their tribe (those referred to as "Indians not taxed") were still NOT considered US citizens.
Furthermore, your quote on the child of an alien specifically refers to them as "a citizen," NOT as a natural born citizen. The comparison is made to a natural born citizen specifically because the two cited individuals do NOT the have the same citizenship status for Constitutional purposes. Nowhere in WKA does it say that the children of aliens are natural born citizens. It refers to them as only "citizens." Likewise, WKA never declares that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are interchangeable terms or statuses.
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.