Posted on 06/22/2013 1:58:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
- Nero germanicus al fogbow has spoken.
This issue is settled we should all just ignore the photoshopped whlfcolb.pdf and the forged selective service document. Those were made just to keep us busy.
I'll give you two examples of "Native Born" folks and explain to you why they are "Native Born".
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana was born in 1971 in Baton Rouge to parents of Indian citizenship. Since his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time..... Bobby is "Native Born" and also had dual citizenship of both the U.S. and India.
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida was born ...also in 1971 at Miami, Florida of Cuban parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time. Marco is also "Native Born".
Both of these gentlemen have attained elective positions in our country which are legal under the Constitution. But....they could never attain the office of the presidency as neither are "Natural Born" (to two parents of U.S. Citizenship). The Constitution prevents anyone except "Natural Born" from being the "Commander in Chief"......for obvious reasons that, unfortunately.....too many folks are clueless about.
The following is from the Naturalization Act of 1790:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed. **********************************************************
In this Act itself we have two type of citizens described....."Naturalized" and "Natural Born" (of two citizen parents). Now......what about folks who have been born in this country to parents who were not U.S. Citizens? Were they just left in Limbo....or are they obviously considered "Native Born"? They weren't mentioned as their citizenship had nothing to do with the Naturalization process.....but the Congress wanted to make sure that children born overseas of "U.S. citizen parents" still had the distinction of "Natural Born". It is possible to be "Natural Born" but not "Native Born". Conversely....you are not necessarily "Natural Born" if you are "Native Born". If you have been "Naturalized....you are neither.
There are three types of citizenship....not two. "Natural Born, Native Born and Naturalized"! The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the status of "Natural Born" citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795 correct?
The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.” Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
Nevertheless...........it shows that the Congress knew and understood (at that time) that the term, "Natural Born Citizen" was defined as "One born of two citizen parents! This was the simple definition of the term during the 18th (and 19th) centuries............and the 14th Amendment dealt with status of freed slaves...... and had not one thing to do with the Constitutional requirements for the "Commander in Chief".
I agree. What is troubling is that Barack Obama during the 08 election had his campaign website ‘Fight The Smears’ state that he was a ‘Native Citizen’ and not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Nobody caught it. Article 2 Section 1 specifically calls for a natural born Citizen and not ‘Native’ born.
See here:
http://www.wnd.com/images/FighttheSmears.jpg
Yes........it's been a total tragedy that no one had the backbone to stand up and declare this offense as criminal. Due to years of subservience to "Socialist" ideals and "Politically Correct" attitudes.........not one person of note was willing to suffer the risk of being labeled a racist by stating the obvious.
We will pay for this cowardice for years to come as our nation may have suffered irreparable harm because of this administration.
The courts have ruled consistently that Barack Obama fits in the natural born citizen category and in 202 original jurisdiction decisions, 92 state and federal appellate rulings and 25 petitions for certiorari and applications for stays or injunctions adjudicated over the last five years no court has ever ruled that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Counting the three, five, seven and nine Justice appellate courts, that’s more than six hundred judges who have looked at this issue.
For example: Rhodes v. MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
or:
Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
or:
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
or:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
They all got the rulings wrong for political correctness purposes.
“There are three types of citizenship....not two. “Natural Born, Native Born and Naturalized”! The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the status of “Natural Born” citizen.”
So what did Revolutionary War Hero, prominent law professor St. James Tucker mean when in 1803 he wrote,
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”
The courts have consistently ruled that Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen and no court, no state’s chief election official and no action of Congress has ever ruled that he is not a natural born citizen.
Native citizen, Citizen of the United States at Birth and Natural Born Citizen are synonymous terms.
The Supreme Court in 1884 ruled in Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, §8
The Court in Elk went on to rule that: “This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
And looking specifically at the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama:
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
If all you say is true, why did he need to produce a forged BC? That’s the crime.
Got a link?
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”
I can't seem to find a reference to the gentleman...........
Are you referring to St. George Tucker....perhaps?
If the BC is forged and a crime has been committed then I have no problem whatsoever with charging Obama and/or anyone else with a crime and pursuing a criminal grand jury indictment and /or a Bill of Impeachment. No one in power seems interested.
The problem is that the state of Hawaii stands behind the authenticity of the BC and both the previous Republican Governor of Hawaii and the current Democrat administration in Hawaii have issue verifications for the authenticity of the birth document.
Here’s a link to what the former Republican Governor said about Obama’s birth certificate: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here’s a link to one of the State of Hawaii Certified Letters of Verification for Obama’s birth certificate:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
The statements of Hawaii officials, Hawaii Department of Health press releases and the certified Letters of Verification appear to have had a chilling effect on any local, state or federal prosecutors initiating criminal investigations for forgery and its the same with Congress which in five years has never held a single investigative hearing on the authenticity or inauthenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.
Yeah, that was a dumb mistake.
His work was "View of the Constitution of the United States".
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=693&chapter=68851&layout=html#a_1661360
There is also this citation from James Kent
"The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome."
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/kent/kent-13.htm
Not to worry.....been there.......done that!
There is also this citation from James Kent
"The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
And your original question:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”
He erred as the wording in [Article II, Section I] of the Constitution does not say "Native Born. It says "Natural Born".....and there's a difference.
The reason that wording in the Constitution exists is simply because at the time of the signing of the Constitution there were no "Natural Born" Citizens available to serve as "Commander in Chief". Many of the colonists had been born in the colonies and many of their parents had also been born there as well...........but, they were all born as British subjects.
The framers, in essence had grandfathered any future "Native Citizens") from serving as the "Commander in Chief" because as time went on....there would eventually be no more "Citizens" (at the time of the signing of this Constitution) because they would soon die off. But in the meantime....at least for the next 30 or 40 years..... they did not want to disqualify themselves from serving as the "Commander in Chief".....just "Native Born" citizens who would come along later....i.e., born in the country of non citizen parents.
This section of the Constitution (Article I Section II] is direct proof that there indeed exists a difference between "Natural Born" and "Native Born" citizen. The third type of citizen the Constitution deals with is found in the "Naturalization clause" [Article I Section III]. That would be the person not born in the territorial limits of the country....but who immigrates and later decides to seek citizenship.
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.
