Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.
I am disputing the bona-fides of:
Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.
Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.
Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.
Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Jefferson disliked a lot of people and a lot of people hated his guts, particularly Martha Washington who dispised Jefferson for writing newspaper articles claiming that George Washington was senile during his second term.
When Jefferson arrived at George Washington’s funeral Martha Washington told a clergyman that Jefferson was “one of the most detestable of mankind.
In the election of 1800 John Adams’ campaign had written that Jefferson was “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.
If the meaning was plain, there wouldn’t be such an ongoing debate.
In 1875 the Supreme Court said: “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”— Minor v Happersett
“Debate” is ginned up by Obama supporters.
The debate is reflected in the actual state and federal court rulings on Obama’s eligibility and the unwillingness of Congress to quell the debate.
21 courts explicitly ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen when plaintiffs were seeking rulings that he is not a natural born citizen.
For example: H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge
“While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattels treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase: The natives, or natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, has constitutional significance or that his use of parents in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen†is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”—Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113533939
Citing the jabberwocky of Ankeny marks Bent as a fool.
Ankeny is the most often cited Obama eligibility ruling. While it doesn’t ring true to you, it has been persuasive to several judges.
There are other judicial rulings on Obama’s natural born citizenship that don’t cite Ankeny. There just haven’t been any rulings that have concluded that he is not a natural born citizen. I’m pretty sure it will be the same with Senators Cruz & Rubio and Rick Santorum.
How is Vattel’s definition at the “core” of a case which has nothing to do with presidential eligibility? It does not seem to follow from what the case is about.
The cite doesn't support the claim - and this is acknowledged and disregarded!The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
14. ^ We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
15. ^ We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
Pure jabberwocky
In the course of the arguments, the United States argued that while Ark was born in the United States, he was not a “natural born citizen”.
The court rejected this in it’s statement:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”
The problem with the arguments all argued on this thread and on this site is that they are all argued persuasively in the dissent in the Ark case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO
Please go to this link and read the dissent in the Ark case. It uses the exact same arguments.
The language you quote says nothing about the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution, which became part thereof long before the 14th Amendment. And, in fact, were you to do your research carefully, you would find that the member of Congress who was the principal mover behind the 14th Amendment, made a point of saying, as recorded in the Congressional record, that the 14th Amendment would have no effect on the presidential eligibility clause. Any language in the dissent would not have any effect upon an issue that was not before the court.
“natural born citizenship” is a quality, not a source.
Footnotes do not a ruling make.
Ankeny is a farce.
I think that the underlying problem is that the claim that Obama was born in Kenya was not gaining acceptance. It was known that his father was Kenyan. So, if it is assumed that he was born in Hawaii, then the only way to attack his qualifications would be to create a new requirement that the father be a citizen.
I think some people underestimate how distraught some people were that Obama had been elected. There were people who could not accept that reality. They would have believed anything that might change the reality of Obama as president. Believing that the father had to be a citizen was not at all difficult for them under the circumstances. I have seen the arguments about Vattel, etc. They are barely rational and certainly not persuasive. It can be seen what the Supreme Court thought about these arguments. Many of them attended the inaugural ceremony and the Chief Justice volunteered to administer the oath of office.
The Cruz candidacy presents a problem for some of the people who convinced themselves that Obama could not have been the real president. I think that if Cruz gets the nomination, the people who thought that Obama was disqualified will in time reconsider the arguments that led them to that corner. For some it will take longer than for others, but in the end, they will all support Cruz if he is the nominee. None of this was ever real to begin with. It is just the way our psychology tends to play tricks on us.
TED CRUZ - 2016!
The Indiana Supreme Court saw no reason to overturn Ankeny v Daniels. It was a Republican administration in Indiana that defended Obama’s eligibility in the lawsuit and the plaintiffs decided not to file a federal appeal. So the ruling stands whether some believe that it is farcical or not.
It made no sense to file civil suit after civil suit (226 in all) when what was being alleged was criminal activity: forgery, election fraud, document tampering, identity theft, Social Security fraud, et cetera.
If you are alleging a crime, find a prosecuting attorney who is willing to convene a grand jury to examine the strength of the evidence. If the evdence is convincing, criminal indictments will be handed down.
Senator Cruz qualifies as a Citizen of the United States At Birth which is synonymous with being a Natural Born Citizen in that no Court has ever ruled otherwise.
I just cannot imagine a court attempting to disqualify a candidate for president. The Constitution plainly states who is to choose our presidents and it is not the courts. If they are ever stupid enough to get involved in that, they will deserve all the craziness that it will bring them. Can you imagine them being forced to treat each candidate as a paternity case? And, they got a chance to see that the people who bring cases like this have no trust or faith in the government documents that the courts would usually rely upon. Every adverse document is called a fraud and worthy of still another case for the courts.
The judiciary of this country will always be smart enough to leave these questions to the voters and to the Electors. No one who is truly disconnected from this country will ever be elected. There is no real problem for the courts to solve.
They argued that Wong was not a citizen at all. In their appellant brief they wrote,
"The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen."
But Judge Morrow of Northern District of California never ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen. He like Justice Gray only said that Wong was a citizen by his birth in California. The US Government assumed that in declaring him a citizen by birth in the United States, the court was declaring him to be natural born.
Later in the same brief the US Government wrote,
"For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?"
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Fuller wrote,
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Two prominent lawyers at the time of the Wong Kim Ark decision also expressed their opinions on the case.
William Dameron Guthrie, 1898
"This decision [Elk v. Wilkins] left in uncertainty the legal status of all others born in the United States of alien parentage. Was their citizenship to be determined by the common-law principle of locality of birth, or was the rule of the civil law as to the allegiance of the parents to control? This question was not settled until a few weeks ago, thirty years after the amendment adopted, thus showing how slowly constitutional law develops in the life of a nation. The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and residing here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and, therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, although his parents could not be naturalized under our laws." 1898
And Alexander Porter Morse, 1903
Under decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a child of domiciled Chinese parents, if born in the United States, would seem to be eligible to the office of President and to all the privileges of the Constitution, while the child of American parents and grandparents, born on shipboard or in foreign territory in travel or transit, might be excluded from similar rights and privileges.
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
The conclusion is, that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is 'a natural-born citizen of the United States,' and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of President of the United States.
I think it is clear that the thinking at the time was that if you were not naturalized than you were natural born regardless of the status of the parents.
With regard to Barack Obama, several courts ruled that they would have entertained questions of his eligibility while he was a candidate but not after he received a majority of the votes of the Electors and was sworn in to office.
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitutions mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
The process for removal of a sitting president— removal for any reason, is within the province of the Congress, not the Courts.
Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09
Also most of the states have election laws that permit opposing candidates to challenge the credentials of other candidates but McCain, Palin, Romney and Ryan did not challenge Obama and neither did the Republican Party or any other political party.
The matter remains undecided at the SCOTUS level, the closest thing being the opinion by Story writing for a unanimous court in Shanks v. Dupont Story's opinion would not be helpful to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, or, for that matter, Santorum. Cruz will not get the free pass when attacked on this issue that the present occupant of the Oval Office got.
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.