Posted on 11/28/2008 9:26:02 AM PST by Deepest End
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Cort Wrotnowski 1057 North Street (202) 862-8554 Greenwich, CT 06831 Party name: Cort Wrotnowski Attorneys for Respondent: Richard Blumenthal Attorney General (860) 808-5316 Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
A report out yesterday indicates that Cort Wrotnowski filed an “injunctive relief” from the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark
We have native born [birthright] citizenship based on jus solis. It is being bestowed everyday on people being born in this country regardless of where their parents come from or their citizenship [diplomats excluded]. Since the distinction between native born and natural born has never been defined in the Constitution, it is pure speculation on how SCOTUS would rule. We do know that in practice, birthright citizenship is the law of the land. You can get citizenship three ways, through blood [jus sanguinis], thru birth on US soil [jus solis], and thru naturalization. For the first two, all you have to produce is the required documentation, i.e., there is no application like there is for naturalization. By birth, you are a citizen. I call that being natural born.
A natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law).
You can make that case in theory, but that is not the way the existing laws are written and administered. First, the US recognizes dual nationality
Second, if the child is born on US soil, he is a US citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents having all of the rights of citizenship.
Third, citizenship can be passed to children thru jus sanguinis under the following conditions: Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Of course that excluded all of those in the country prior to the Constitution being adopted and signed. Constitutional scholars differ on birthright citizenship and the intentions of the 14th Amendment. IMO it will take a constitutional amendment to change it. And I don't believe that you can make a distinction between native born and natural born essentially having two kinds of "natural born" citizens depending on whether that citizenship was conveyed thru jus solis or jus sanguinis. I do know that there is no distinction under current law and practice.
And the left claimed President Bush was selected.
McCain got his natural born citizenship thru jus sanguinis,.i.e., both his parents were US citizens.
That would have disqualified someone like Alexander Hamilton from being President (if born after the cut off date), so I doubt that was a widely shared interpretation.
Natural Born Citizenship has to be determined under the Common Law as it stood in the past, not by any subsequent Law, or Regulation. Neither the 14th Amendment nor any other enactment changes Article II at all.
Good summary:
“Obama’s Constitutionally Faithless Electors”
http://www.redcounty.com/williamson/2008/11/obamas-constitutionally-faithl/
A Wider Conspiracy: 17 Lawsuits Challenging Obama’s Eligibility
“Closer scrutiny of this resolution, however, finds that the resolution actually was expanded far beyond what was necessary to merely apply to Senator McCain: it was expanded to include naturalized citizens, which ironically was the “cause of death” for this resolution.”
What angers and frightens me the most is our Constitution, the very fabric of our Nation, can be destroyed at the whim of some men and women who supposedly represent us.
The congress, the Supreme Court will just sit and basically vote by whatever motivates them. Some with the knowledge of what they are doing and some without.
God help us.
Natural Born Citizenship - no (or at least questionable in regards to the qualifications of Presidency)
Do the homework. Hamilton or anyone born during the period had an exemption. Obama would have to be over 200 years old to get the exemption.
America has never been hard on bastards. After all, we are NOT Europe.
I remembr listening to the Thomas “Conformation” Hearings aka witchunt in my car like it was yesterday. One of the most disgusting events in our history. They just wanted to “get him” because he was a conservative black man.
The Left’s continued despicable hatred for Justice Thomas is unforgiveble.
For a simple explanation of why Barack Obama isn’t a Natural Born citizen, watch the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU
The following is a link to British Nationality Law 1948.
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
It clearly states that a person born after the commencement of the act would be a citizen of the UK and Colonies by DESCENT if the father was a citizen of the UK at the time of birth.
Please refer to Part II - Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies - Citizenship by birth or descent.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:”
“What I find odd is the fact that Obama could clear this up in a NY minute by just producing the COLB and put an end to this legal battle and speculation. It certainly raises some very real questions as to what he might be hiding.”
So, could a judge or a court subpoena the vault birth information from Hawaii? That might quickly settle it, if Hawaii’s information indicates where he was born.
“By birth, you are a citizen. I call that being natural born.”
This response is a little out of order.
First, YOU call it being “natural born” - SCOTUS NEVER has ... As, I said before - CITE ME A CASE where SCOTUS has determined that ANYONE has been “natural born”.
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark ...”
Close - but that only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 71 Fed. 382.
This was a straight 14th Amendment case and SCOTUS ruled that he was a citizen - NOT a “natural born” citizen - just as the 14th Amendment states.
“We have native born [birthright] citizenship based on jus solis ...”
True, Jus soli (Latin for “right of the territory”), or birthright citizenship, is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the territory of the related state. In fact, it is the concept upon which the 14th Amendment is based.
HOWEVER, again, it has NO bearing on “natural born” citizenship.
“You can get citizenship three ways, through blood [jus sanguinis], thru birth on US soil [jus solis], and thru naturalization ...”
Jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a father who is a national or citizen of the state.
This is pretty straight-forward. except the concept applies to the nationality and citizenship of the FATHER.
“You can make that case in theory, but that is not the way the existing laws are written and administered. First, the US recognizes dual nationality.”
NOT EXACTLY ... the United States recognizes that dual nationality may exist, depending upon one’s birth circumstances.
HOWEVER, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
“... if the child is born on US soil, he is a US citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents having all of the rights of citizenship.”
I agree - 14th Amendment ...
HOWEVER, again, it does NOT address “natural born” status. Being born a citizen on US soil does NOT automatically confer “natural born” citizenship.
“Third, citizenship can be passed to children thru jus sanguinis under the following conditions: Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad ...”
Again, it is citizenship, not “natural born” citizenship ...
“Of course that excluded all of those in the country prior to the Constitution being adopted and signed.”
EXACTLY:
Haven’t you ever wondered about Article II, Section I, Clause 5?
“... 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 ...”
Why did they put the caveat in there: “... Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?
IT IS BECAUSE THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE “NATURAL BORN” - EVEN IF THEY WERE BORN ON U.S. SOIL.
The theories being put forth in these cases now before SCOTUS are lending an interpretation (valid, I believe) that there are 3 types of citizenship.
1. Native-Born, regardless of ancestry (parents can be of any nationality). Typically, anyone born in the USA.
2. Naturalized, an alien who gives up his allegiance to another sovreign and swears allegiance to the United States.
3. “Natural Born”, a Native-Born citizen with BOTH parents U.S. citizens (the parents are, typically, Native-Born).
Therefore, every “Natural Born” citizen is a Native-Born citizen ... BUT, NOT EVERY Native-Born citizen is a “Natural-Born” citizen.
Just as every citizen is a National - but NOT every National is a citizen (U.S. Law).
That was a good video of Justice Thomas. There were also links there to the 60 minutes piece on Justice Thomas, and it was very illuminating about his views of his job on the court, about doing what is right and standing on principle, and his respect for the Constitution.
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. If born in Hawaii, definitely natural born. If born abroad, we need more information.
CITE ME A CASE WHERE SCOTUS HAS DETERMINED THAT ANYONE IS NOT NATURAL BORN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE AND STATUE, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXISTS. ANY CHILD BORN ON US SOIL, EXCEPT FOR THE CHILDREN OF ACCREDITED DIPLOMATS, AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A US CITIZEN AND CAN RECEIVE A US PASSPORT JUST BY PROVIDING PROOF OF BIRTH IN THE US.
As I have said, you are entitled to your opinion. We will just agree to disagree. Certainly, there is disagreement among constitutional scholars on this issue. Congress held a length hearing on birthright citizenship with experts on all sides of the issue. Until SCOTUS accepts a case that clearly addresses the issue, you and I can speculate all we want. And even after they make such a decision, it will still be controversial. So deal with it.
IT IS BECAUSE THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE “NATURAL BORN” - EVEN IF THEY WERE BORN ON U.S. SOIL.
NO, IT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNTIL THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED. THE USA DID NOT EXIST AS POLITICAL ENTITY BEFORE THAT. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE BRITISH CITIZENS WHEN THEY WERE LIVING IN THE COLONIES. THEY WERE BEING TAXED BY THE CROWN. ESSENTIALLY, THEY WERE GRANDFATHERING THEMSELVES IN, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAD BEEN BORN ELSEWHERE, E.G., IN EUROPE, JAMAICA, ETC.
BUT, NOT EVERY Native-Born citizen is a “Natural-Born” citizen.
WE WILL AGREE TO DISAGREE. IMO YOU ARE WRONG/WRONG.
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.