Posted on 06/22/2012 9:27:36 AM PDT by Perseverando
Exclusive: Joseph Farah explains why he won't buckle on Obama eligibility issue
It’s clear Republicans in office and seeking office this year are not going to attack Barack Obama where he is most vulnerable – his very legitimacy to hold office under the Constitution as a “natural born citizen.”
He’s not a natural born citizen.
At least by his own admission, he was a dual citizen at birth. Of course, Obama is not known for telling the truth – or even the same lie.
Prior to presidential ambitions he apparently got in 2007, he and his literary surrogates boasted of his being “Kenyan-born.” I don’t know if that story was true or not. But it really doesn’t matter. It also doesn’t matter where he was born, but there is great suspicion and plenty of evidence to suggest he is lying with his new cover story about a Hawaiian birth.
But let’s suppose for a moment that the evidence of Obama’s ultimate election fraud becomes overwhelming after he leaves office in 2013, assuming he is defeated and has the decency to do what all past defeated presidents have done throughout American history.
What then?
What will it tell the American people about the enabling Republicans who were too afraid to challenge Obama when it really counted?
What will it mean for all of the legislation Obama signed during his four years in office?
What will it mean for the U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed for life terms by Obama?
What if the indisputable facts become widely known – or perhaps even proven in a court of law?
Will Republicans just go on with business as usual?
Will it change the course of American history?
Or will we still be in a position where we just can’t talk about matters of constitutional
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
What you will admit to being able to find means very little. The Minor court required parents by rejecting any other definition of citizenship without them as doubtful, and by exclusively characterizing the class of children born to parents as NBC. Otherwise, there was no reason to make any distinction. Minor didn't argue she was born of citizen parents.
Even Vattel said that the English have different rules when he described indegenes and that is their right.
This is obvious misdirection. Vattel was desribing naturalization when he talked about the English, not indigenes.
In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.Madison himself 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.”
Yes, Madison said place is the MOST CERTAIN criterion, but he doesn't say its the ONLY criterion. And he shows that it's not the only criterion in the next sentence following what you quoted:
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Ouch! His birthright is claimed upon his ancestors. Why, that's jus sanguinis, not place of birth.
You seem educated and full of words. You have taken a position that is out of the mainstream. Why don’t you set this “realist” straight. Show me where it is written (other than in the far recess of your mind) that to be president your parents must be U.S. citizens unless born overseas (as in the case of McShame)?
I deal in facts and reality, not dreams. I know for a fact that you don’t need two citizen parents if you are born on U.S. soil to be eligible for president; that is a rule you have devised in your head because you don’t like our present shithead president; that is a rule that you get confused with U.S. citizens bearing children overseas. Show me the rule that says that you need citizen parents when born on U.S. soil. You won’t and you can’t. EPIC FAIL!
Nice trantrum, but that’s all this is. As a realist, explain why the Minor court said anything about being born to citizen parents?? What would be the point??
Nice trantrum, but that’s all this is. As a realist, explain why the Minor court said anything about being born to citizen parents. What would be the point??
What crap! You don't know that. Wong Kim Ark totally dispells any theories you have about Vattel:
It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and
“mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by “a favor, a sort of fiction,” and Calvo, “by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality.” Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall’s International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186.
Regarding your dig at Madison, don't you know anything about the written language? Madison said, "it is what applies in the United States. That is a definitive statement. Adding that Mr. Smith's family goes back a long way doesn't add to the conversation, it just means that he is vouching for Mr. Smith's character.
You birthers live in a total vacuum. You cherry pick things that seem to prove your point totally forgetting the context in which the statement was made.
If you can’t refute the facts, make fun of your opponent. What’s the matter, can’t stand the heat?
Oh great, more misdirection ahead. This is very speculative dicta and not even a specific legal precedent: the court says "it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally" by citing one quote from someone in France talking about "native-born" citizenship. Gray never applies this to the Constitutional term "natural born Citizen," thus it does NOTHING to dispell Vattel. All Gray was doing was building an argument to make the 14th amendment apply to the children of aliens AND to have enough weight to justify setting aside a treaty with China.
Regarding your dig at Madison, don't you know anything about the written language? Madison said, "it is what applies in the United States. That is a definitive statement.
You're misdirecting again. Is is definitely true that place of birth is ONE criterion that applies in the United States, but it is NOT the ONLY criterion. That's why NBC is defined by place of birth AND by citizen parents ... and it's why Madison cites the birthright of Mr. Smith through his ancestors.
Minor says:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
My response to your question.
For birthers, who pride themselves on relying on the original intent of the Constitution and laws, to ignore the fact that this case was never intended to decide the definition of who was or wasn’t a natural born citizen belies both their own agenda and their failure to practice reading comprehension. To borrow some words from Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s majority opinion, resort must be had elsewhere to come to a conclusive definition of “natural born citizen”.
I can find at least 30 "elsewheres" and not a one of them require citizen parents UNLESS that person was born overseas! You cannot find ONE to defend your position.
You dodged my question. Try again.
no the law is clear, direct, and precise. There are only two kinds of citizen. Born and Naturalized. There is zero nuance. Born a citizens is born a citizen without any varriation or nuance. period.
http://www.uscis.gov formerly ins.gov
hilarious
and wrong
the founders specifically used the term ‘natural born citizen’ for the office of the president, while simply using ‘citizen’ for all other positions. why do you think that is?
oh, there is no need to guess... the founders discussed it. their purpose was to insure, at least by birth, anyone that took the office would not have split allegiances.
ignorance doesn’t make you right, it just makes you ignorant. repeating falsehoods doesn’t improve their truthfulness. no matter how often you say “2 + 2 is 3”, it never will be.
the cold hard truth:
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally, as there are no alternatives.
I don't see YOUR proof of 2 parent citizen requirement if born on U.S. soil. Admit it, you are confused by jus soli and jus sanguinis, aren't you?
From Merriam/Webster: jus san•gui•nis noun \-ˈsäŋ-gwə-nəs\
Definition of JUS SANGUINIS
: a rule that a child's citizenship is determined by its parents' citizenship
Origin of JUS SANGUINIS
Latin, right of blood
First Known Use: 1902
U.S. law and legal precedent adhere to the fact that Jus Sanguinis applies ONLY to children born of U.S. parents OUTSIDE of the U.S., otherwise Jus Soli is the rule of the land. GET OVER IT!
Cogitate on this. Chester Arthur's father was not a citizen at Chester's birth yet he served as our 21st President without objection. During some political infighting Arthur was accused of being born in Canada - that is why his presidency was questioned. No one cared about his father's credentials but they did care whether Chester was born in Vermont or Canada. Apparently Vermont won out.
Maybe your time would be better spent in a library or finish grade school because that is where you learn this stuff.
Are you freeking serious? They said that because naturalized citizens are NOT natural or native born citizens, they were born outside of this country to aliens. Only those born in the U.S. can be president. That is why the Arnold cannot be president - he is a naturalized citizen.
Your should follow your own advice about ignorance. What could be more natural than being born on U.S. soil? You people keep adding qualifiers to plain and simple English. If the framers wanted citizen parents they would have freekin said it! Excuse the language but you idiots really tick me off.
The cold hard truth is you cannot prove your point. I asked Edge and he couldn't so I'll ask you, where is it written that NBC requires citizen parents?
Talk about misdirection. Do you think that kind of approach impresses anyone other than yourself? You dismiss out of hand 50 pages of Wong Kim Ark really well though out dicta and cling for dear life to one paragraph of Minor dicta. You do that because you have nothing else solid to stand on. There is no one manning the oars on your ship. Interesting, says a lot about you.
I’m still waiting for your answer to the two citizen rule. I’d really like to see where it is written down.
You just shot your own argument in the foot. The only conclusive definition of CITIZENS relies on citizen parents. That class of citizens was exclusively characterized as natural-born. Any definition of citizen that doesn't include birth in the country to citizen parents had doubt, so such definitions are not conclusive. The Minor court didn't have to solve any doubts because Virginia Minor fit its defintion of NBC. Wong Kim Ark didn't try to solve those doubts about natural-born citizenship, but only as to whether Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States.
Also, your reading comprehension isn't too good here. Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen via the 14th amendment, but the court rejected that argument: "in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position." Do you understand?? Women do not need the 14th amendment to become citizens when they are born in the country to citizen parents ... because they fit the characterization of natural-born citizen.
Further, the ELSEWHERE Waite refers to is a verbatim match of the Law of Nations in defining NBC. Compare the language:
Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens ... These were natives, or natural-born citizens
Law of Nations: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
And one last thing: The Minor decision was written by C.J. Waite, not Fuller.
Once again this is what Madison 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.”
You say, “You're misdirecting again. Is is definitely true that place of birth is ONE criterion that applies in the United States, but it is NOT the ONLY criterion.” Of course its not the ONLY criterion but it is the ONLY criterion when Madison says, “it is what applies in the United States.”
Can’t you read a simple sentence?
You're the one applying misdirection when you say, "and it's why Madison cites the birthright of Mr. Smith through his ancestors."
How I take Madison's last comment is that "not only is Mr. Smith a natural born citizen but he is of good family stock dating back to....all good Americans." Madison is after all attesting to the character of Mr. Smith. You should investigate the concept of context.
Get out of the vacuum you live in!!!!!
hilarious.
i could go over this time and again, and have, but you’d ignore the facts because you have some candidate that you want to promote, that doesn’t satisfy this simplistic requirement.
arnold was not born on US soil... he was not a natural born citizen of the US... but he is a natural born citizen of Austria as both his parents were Austrian citizens
marco rubio was born on US soil... and is a US citizen. but both of his parents were cuban at the time of his birth, thereby making him a US citizen and a possible cuban citizen.. therefore NOT a natural born citizen
0bama was (supposedly) born in hawaii to one US citizen parent and one British subject. at birth, he was a US citizen AND a british subject... therefore NOT a natural born citizen
Sarah Palin was born in Idaho to two US citizen parents. at birth, she was a US citizen and only a US citizen. Sarah Palin is a natural born US citizen
the VAST majority of Americans are natural born citizens and have never had to think about the differences.
having been born in MA to a US citizen father and a Scottish mother, i was born as a US citizen AND British by descent... therefore i am NOT a natural born citizen
You are misdirecting again. I didn't dismiss 50 pages of Wong Kim out of hand. I told you what Gray was doing. The only references in this decision to the specific Constitutional term of natural-born citizen are in reference to the Minor affirmation of the definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The Ark court specifically affirms the holding in Minor as being based on citizen parents. If the court was redefining NBC, why would it affirm a holding based on having citizen parents??
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
The Ark court specifically said that NBCs are EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment and noted so because of the UNANIMOUS Minor decision:
all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court
Quote the ENTIRE paragraph. Quit leaving off the part that defeats your argument:
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; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Madison argues for Smith's birthright because his parents primary allegiance was to the colony, not to the sovereign, and that the will of the colony to dissolve from England dissolved the allegiance of those who were under the age of consent at the time of the Revolution. Otherwise, had the parents been alive and adhered to the crown, the child would have naturally followed their allegiance. This was established in Shanks v. Dupont, and reaffirmed in Wong Kim Ark through a secondary citation of U.S. v Rhodes.
You keep basing your arguments on Minor. If that’s all you’ve got then you have nothing. There is nothing “conclusive” there.
You know what, you are beyond hope I think. Go back to your little world, and maybe some sense will spring out of a closet at you. Or, if you like I can quote at least 40 or 50 citations that prove you are wrong. I’ll check back on this thread tomorrow.
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.