Posted on 02/20/2016 7:59:34 AM PST by Enlightened1
LOL. Ridiculous analysis. I’ve viewed it and posted this before (slight improvements added):
First, it’s too short to get anywhere interesting.
But there are substantive problems as well. Basically, what she does is ignore jus soli (right of soil) entirely, which puts her at odds with almost every Vattell fan whose ever posted on FR, and with Scalia and aa few of the founders, who specifically spoke of jus soli favorably.
Now, by focusing on jus sanguinis, the right of blood, she thinks she can dispense with Rubio, because his parents were not citizens. So boom, she’s done with Rubio.
Ted is a different problem. He’s got a jus sanguinis claim, born to a citizen mother. To defeat Ted Cruz, she relies on her belief in the sole capacity of the father to transmit citizenship to the child. As she states it, this was based on a view of marriage in which the woman had no legal existence apart from her husband, and thus had no natural right or power to transmit citizenship by blood to her child.
And frankly, yes, her view that this defective understanding of female social status could never change, simply because it is what the founders believed, is profoundly of the mark, because it would mean that any misunderstanding of the rights of blacks could never change, because some of the founders held an inferior view of blacks EVEN If that defect in understanding had never been codified into the Constitution.
That is beyond ridiculous. It’s bizarre nonsense. I think most conservatives would agree that modern feminism is an unhealthy overreaction to problems of the past, but the view of women as full legal persons in their own right would not only trump the older view as controlling law under equal protection, but is also more consistent with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the elevated social status of women as taught in Scripture.
All this shows her to be quite the lightweight. You can’t neglect jus soli in a discussion of natural born citizen. It is the dominant rule. Jus sanguinis is the exception. Valid, but not the dominant theme. That she has this backwards is a big red flag. No consistent Vattellian should be using her as a reference.
But that she also believes US law is committed to a doctrine of male-only transmission of jus sanguinis citizenship and can never edit the operation of that principle, as US law in fact has done, shows she does not understand basic issues in the natural born problem domain.
For example, internationally, the forms of citizenship acquisition and transmission have always been editable by the sovereign, and often by statute. Britain did it. France changed it a couple of times. No, we aren’t copying France, thank goodness, but the principle is there: A sovereign nation has the natural right to determine who shall be it’s citizens.
So while I would not be inclined to use harsh words to describe her efforts, they are definitely weaker than many a fine poster on either side of the subject whom we have seen on these pages.
Peace,
SR
Let me enlarge on what was found. Indonesia law states that they don’t except any dual citizenship which would have affected Obama’s US citizenship but discovered that he would have had to denounce his US citizenship at an embassy. So no matter what Indonesia said, Obama was still a US citizen.
It is.
Is this Noor’s son?
Post from Yosemitest to a similar thread on the subject: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3398989/posts
As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN’s Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
” ... The Constitution’s 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.
Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may “judge” whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.
If a dispute arises about Smith’s age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is “the judge” of Smith’s birth certificate dispute.
Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a “nonjusticiable political question.”
NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn’t have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2] A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.
A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
Now, let’s take a close look at the word “NATURALIZATION”, its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of “Naturalization” ?
“Naturalize” !
“admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen,” 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of “by birth” + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.
Not only could the Founding Father define “natural born citizen”, BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
The Naturalization Act of 1790, let’s read it !
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.
Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.
If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
“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.”But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
* There is an exception in the law - - the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition:
a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was “declared” to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
“a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A “national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
(Continued)
7 posted on 2/18/2016, 10:31:22 PM by Yosemitest (It’s SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
I think what you have missed is the full legal equality of women.
Bogus example. Queen Noor relinquished her citizenship when she married the king. She had no American citizenship to pass on to her children. Google it. Multiple sources.
Peace,
SR
I’m more concerned about US law and US court opinions, not some other courtries laws or opinions.
Cruz is running so apparently there isn’t a conflict or at least nothing filed at this time.
Yes. Ineligible. Mother relinquished here citizenship at the time she married the king.
Peace,
SR
Unless you count Florida’s Grayson. I think there’s a hearing in Chicago filed by a private citizen. Thought I saw it on FR yesterday.
To my knowledge the prince never came to live here nor has he voiced any aspirations or efforts to instill himself here. I guess my real question would be is if Ted’s mother ever ‘relinquish’ her citizenship in Canada and whether she was of legal age and lived in America any period of time in or around the time of his birth.
I can’t say that about Obama.
Did his mother meet the residency requirements to pass citizenship on to a child? (Maybe) Did he meet the residency requirements to avoid forfeiting citizenship? (Probably not) If yes on both counts, then it’s possible (although there may be rules about foreign passports, etc.)
Looks a lot more legit than Caliph Baraq’s
I think there’s a hearing in Chicago filed by a private citizen.
****************
I doubt that will amount to much. Cruz is on the ballots so in effect the people will speak.
Take care and thanks for the exchange.
Thanks for your post Bill, this whole issue is very straight forward. Unfortunately, there are people here who be live that if you say a lie often and long enough it is true. I think it was Hitler's Joseph Goebbels who crafted that thinking.
That's because it is legit. Ted's mother was born in Delaware. She was never a Canadian citizen.
You take care too!
It “explains” nothing.
It poses nonsense.
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.