Posted on 06/05/2012 5:58:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
An odd taboo has been created on noticing that the president of the United States has a biography that can adapt itself to the needs of the moment. Go too far in raising an alarm, and be labeled "birther" and shunned in polite society.
The credit for creating the "birther" label was claimed in 2008 by columnist David Weigel:
I think I originally coined the term "Birthers" to describe the people who think the state of Hawaii and its time travel machine are concealing the truth about Obama's birth on the roof of a mosque in Kenya. It's not just the reference to 9/11 "truthers" that I like. It's the callback to the John Birch Society, id est the "Birchers."
Weigel was also the most notorious "JournoLister." In case you've forgotten about that left-wing media cabal, this Daily Caller article described the JournoList's coordinated efforts to bury the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 campaign. (Although JournoList was disbanded in 2010, the mainstream media, in remarkable unison, have covered up the recent revelation that Wright was bribed $150,000 to keep quiet.)
The sarcastic "birther" post was written by Weigel long before the Breitbart discovery of the literary agency biography that claimed Obama was born in Kenya. That portion of the biography's claims survived for over 16 years through multiple other updates. Likely, many in the circles of publishing, Chicago politics, and Obama's college and early career days had heard or read about a Kenyan birth somewhere. Which leaves open the possibility that Weigel and his fellow JournoListers tripped over the story, or were slipped a tip, early in the campaign, and chose to utilize Alinksy tactics in case such tidbits oozed through any cracks in the preferred narrative.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Don't hold your breath waiting for links or anything else substantive to back Sven's assertions. I've never seen a single instance of such in over a year.
Interesting assertions, Sven. Got link?
Appreciate the ping ... waiting for a valid court case before exposing the documentation no doubt. Exposing the lying commie bastard could get a person killed don’tchaknow.
TexasVoter,
Seconding your request for link!!
Hope you have sent this information to Sheriff Joe, Corsi or others that are speaking out.
A senator can be censured or expelled, not impeached. There were papers of censure or expulsion drawn up?
There is such a definitive ruling. It's called Minor v. Happersett. It's definitive because the Minor court had a chance to characterize 14th amendment citizenship as natural-born and unanimously refused. The Minor ruling was found to be definitive several years later when its NBC definition was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and several years after that when Luria v. United States cited Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark in specific relation to presidential eligiblity:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
While this quote from Luria says "native citizen," keep in mind that Minor defined native exactly the same as natural-born. The absence of Wong Kim Ark in that citation screams volumes about why it is not a source of defining native citizens as pertains to Article II of the Constitution. Here's the money quote from Minor:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Not if they send the info to Sheriff Joe and his posse.
The good sheriff got his info from somewhere; there had to have been people that said ‘enough is enough, I’m giving my statements’
“In 1983, Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen. His Certificate of Naturalization is on file with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” - SnM
Please provide support for this extraordinary claim.
Classic use of a quotation taken out of context.
I wholeheartedly agree that those born in USA of two citizen parents are NBC.
Your quote continues with, “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
The Court here said it was not addressing these issues. So for a definitive ruling on whether Obama is or is not NBC, two points would have to be established:
1. Is a child born on US soil to non-citizen parents NBC?
2. Is a child born on US soil to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent NBC?
Till those questions have been answered, particularly the second, the issue is still open. Which is what I said.
The quotation is entirely IN context. The Minor court unanimously rejected Virginia Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument by identifying ONE type of citizenship that has no doubt. It ALSO identified all other ways to become a citizen, but it purposely characterized only ONE class of citizens as natural-born. Their point in saying there are doubts about children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents wasn't that there are other ways to become a natural-born citizen, but that 14th amendment citizenship has inherent doubts that must be resolved. Virginia Minor would have a citizen under either definition, so why would the court say anything about her having citizen parents when she didn't stake her citizenship claim upon this criteria?? Why didn't they just accept her argument?? There's no other reason for saying anything about citizen parents IN CONTEXT except in how it is the only way to define NBC.
The questions you've posed are wrong. They should be:
1. Is a child born on US soil to non-citizen parents a citizen of the United States?? We know this child is NOT an NBC, but the court admits that the child might still be a citizen, which would happen by figuring out how to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. The Ark court did this through a permanent residence and domicil criteria for the parents. The Minor court didn't need to consider this particular issue because Virginia Minor and all children born to citizen parents are NBCs. All other persons still rely on other forms of naturalization to become citizens.
2. 2. Is a child born on US soil to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent a citizen a citizen of the United States. Unless the child's father is the citizen, this child is not an NBC. The legal precedent at the time Minor was decided was in Shanks v. Dupont, which said the citizenship of married women is controlled by the Law of Nations and NOT by public law. The citizenship of married women was changed by public law in the 20th century, but since Congress only has the power of naturalization, it means the issue of such a couple can only be a naturalized citizen, either through the 14th amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act (which inherently applies to Aliens).
Disagree. Particularly with regard to the sex of the citizen parent being critical.
It’s not the “sex” that’s critical but the relationship. The Supreme Court has been consistent in using the law of nations principle that citizenship naturally follows the condition of the father. This was affirmed in The Venus, Shanks v. Dupont and Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor. NBC is defined in the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution which is dependent on inheritance rights through the father and that the mother’s citizenship under natural law is the same as her husband’s. Dual citizenship is a modern invention that simply doesn’t define nor redefine natural-born citizenship. The only way to do it is to disregard the citizenship of the parents, which goes specifically AGAINST what the Supreme Court said in Minor and Ark when they said the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship.
While you may be correct in the strict sense of the law, I believe the cases you cite are from all the 19th century.
While it may never have been formally instituted, I believe you will find our present law makes essentially no distinction between parents in this regard. I really cannot see any court deciding that Obama is not NBC because his father rather than his mother was not a citizen.
Ain’t gonna happen.
It is also relevant that the Law of Nations to which you refer is just another term for “international law,” which has itself changed greatly since Vattel wrote.
I agree that dual citizenship has nothing to do with the case. US law, properly, decides who is or is not a citizen, ignoring whether some other jurisdiction also considers the person to be a citizen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2151323/posts?q=1&;page=177
More information before and after that post.
Luria v. United States is from the 20th century. It doesn't really matter what century it's from. A legal precedent is still a legal precedent, unless it has been specifically overruled or invalidated by Constitutional amendment or statutory revision.
While it may never have been formally instituted, I believe you will find our present law makes essentially no distinction between parents in this regard. I really cannot see any court deciding that Obama is not NBC because his father rather than his mother was not a citizen.
NBC is a Constitutional term. It has a specific definition. The courts need to come up with solid legal reasoning not to follow a unanimous legal precedent from 27 different Supreme Court justices.
It is also relevant that the Law of Nations to which you refer is just another term for “international law,” which has itself changed greatly since Vattel wrote.
Again, this is irrelevant when we have a clear, unanimous legal precedent from 27 Supreme Court justices. There is no higher legal authority. The court still cites Minor when it says terms in the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the common law. The common law that the court used to define NBC is from the Law of Nations.
I agree that dual citizenship has nothing to do with the case. US law, properly, decides who is or is not a citizen, ignoring whether some other jurisdiction also considers the person to be a citizen.
No, this isn't entirely true. Courts have to respect international law when there is no clear precedent. And we have a further precedent from the Supreme Court that affirms that natural citizenship in the U.S. is solitary citizenship, not dual citizenship. Shanks v. Dupont affirms that via the Treaty of 1783, persons were either subjects of Great Britain or citizens of the United States, not both. There's no way that four years later, a lesser standard of citizenship would have been adopted by the framers of the Constitution when they chose the term natural-born citizen as the presidential eligibility requirement. It inherently precludes ANY kind of loyalty or allegiance to another country.
Shot yourself in the foot here.
The term "common law" has a specific meaning. It refers to the body of traditional judge-made law specific to England.
It has almost nothing to do with the body of law referenced by Vattel, which is civil law, descended from Roman law.
English common law was extremely specific that jus solis applied.
Not at all
The term "common law" has a specific meaning. It refers to the body of traditional judge-made law specific to England.
Sorry, but William Blackstone said:
... the law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law ...
Further, we know that Minor's definition of NBC is NOT from English common law.
In 1983, Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen. His Certificate of Naturalization is on file with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
It is an argument that I have no current qualms with. It is as plausible and fits the known facts as well as anything else i've heard so far.
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.