Funny, I didn't see that in FactCheck's sister publication:
Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
It has been acknowledged that the term 'natural born' was dropped in the 1795 law. But, tell me, what is the difference between 'natural born' and 'born...citizens'? My view, based on the dictionary definition of 'natural born' ('having a quality or status from birth') is that there is no difference.
To clarify, I cite the 1790 statute to refute the 'original intent' argument, as that 'natural born citizens' statute was written by a Congress that included FFs and signed by Washington (that guy on the dollar) (well, most of the time - I have a Tedy Bruschi dollar, too).
"P.A. Madison (whoever this is and who cares) has quite rightly shown the War of 1812 was essentially fought over British application of its nefarious claim upon so-called “British” (first and one must assume some SECOND generation ex-colonials, looking at this from the Limey claim) sons in enforced conscription of some 6000 in the naval blockade that triggered the war. It can be thus assumed the issue was considered settled with the last act prior to the war and did not need to be repeated in any act subsequent."
Who P.A. Madison is is relevant as he is being repeatedly cited as an expert, yet, we know nothing about him or his credentials, and I have previously illustrated flaws in his arguments on this very thread. Suppose I were to post my analysis on a site and sign my articles 'P.I.Jefferson' and some of the FReepers on this (and other) threads were to cite my site, perhaps even me, would that in and of itself validate my position on the topic? Just because it is on the internet does not make it the truth.
We are debating an idea that is fundamental to Donofrio's case, that there is a class of citizen 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen'. I find this to be a serious - read fatal - flaw in Donofrio's case as there is no basis in Law or in the COTUS to support this argument. People who WANT it to be true have repeated their convoluted arguments ad nauseam, apparently believing that enough repetition will MAKE it true. It won't. When someone shows me I am wrong I will acknowledge it. I have, on this very topic, as my original position was that the question of Obama's citizenship was silly. But until there is some legitimate evidence that I am wrong, and not just the alternation of words that are synonymous, I will maintain that it is a distinction without a difference.
One more point: Since the British considered those 6000 impressed persons to be British subjects, does that mean they could not be considered 'natural born' and thus be ineligible to be President, even if they were born, say, in 1796 in, oh, Philadelphia? Or does that illustrate why the view of any other country as to an individual's citizenship is irrelevant to the US?
Gently: Obama, Ayers and FactCheck all have ties to Annenberg and to each other. Not a credible source.
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States"
I did point out the relevant section.
You remind me of the little boy who wants something and will not take any answer other than the one he wants said. Your agenda is becoming plainer with every one of your posts. You are here to obfuscate and sow doubt and play obamanoid agitprop. No need to give you any further attention.
And again, would the British Crown’s view that persons born in the colonies up to the end of the War of 1812 - a view it clearly held - make those persons ineligible to be President? Or does it illustrate that the views of foreign governments have no bearing what so ever on the eligibility of an individual to be POTUS?
Funny, I didn't see that in FactCheck's sister publication:
This might help you. Also, Perkins V. Elg.
"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."
"...born...citizens...". Having that attribute or quality from birth. Now, looking that up in my magic reverse dictionary: ah! 'natural born citizen'
Supreme Court rulings (several cited, but you won’t read and acknowledge them) trump State Department manuals.
As far as I know, Polarik's analysis is credible. Take it up with him, then.
Did you take that out of context deliberately, or did you just miss the "If Obama was born in the US" part? McCain acknowledges he was born out of the US to US citizen parents. Obama denies that he was born outside the US to a non citizen and an unqualified to pass citizenship by virtue of residency citizen. Apples and Oranges.
“Polarik. Some more here.”
Ohhh...kayyy...
This is the guy with the Jigsaw voice and mushed-out face on the YouTube video? One of Berg’s ‘experts?’
Let’s just say I found this guy more credible. That and it logically follows that were it actually a fake there would be lots more people coming forward, so many so it would be impossible to contain the deluge. It wouldn’t be limited to the minions of 911 ‘truthers.’
"they are in fact ILLEGAL ALIENS" ..... Wrong for McCain.....
McCain is an American citizen by the fact that his father was on Active U.S. Military Duty and his mother was an American citizen.
danamco: "Yes, IF both parents are U.S. citizens, which is NOT the case here!!!"
calenel: "Where is your source for that? Don't just repeat."
danamco: "Hello? Are talking about the same issue?? Who is Hussein's father???"
Your assertion that for a citizen that does not have to be naturalized, that two US citizen parents are required in order for that person to be considered a natural born citizen. Where is your source for that?
1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
This clearly establishes that any child of a citizen is also a citizen, with the caveat of some residency requirements that would not apply to McCain as both his parents were citizens, and some that would but which were clearly met.
However I have seen the phrase 'citizen father or citizen mother or both' which makes one or both parents equivalent in terms of requirements. Specifically, 'father or mother or both' means one is sufficient.
1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
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.