Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It's unlikely the grandparents "called them in", since that is not the way it was done.
However they were generated by the filing of a birth certificate, even one alleging a home birth, with no doctor's signature, no hospital registrar's name and signature, and with only the signatures of an "information provider", generally a parent (but could be easily forged) and a witness, who would sign where the doctor otherwise would. IF he was not born in Hawaii, that would be the most likely source for the announcement, and would also be the source of the information on the CoLB. That is why the country needs to see the long form. A home birth in '61 for someone from Stanley Ann's background woudl be extremely unusual, but they were not real unsual in Hawaii at the time, for persons from lower socioeconomic strata. It was not yet "cool" to do a home birth.
Even if Title 8 was codified into positive law, and it’s not, it wouldn’t trump the Constitution.
Which “title” was in play regarding the clean air act? Has that code been enacted into positive law? What constitutional questions were in play?
The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies. These regulations apply the law to daily situations. After regulations are published in the Federal Register, they are collected and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as the CFR. The CFR is arranged by subject title and generally parallels the structure of the United States Code. Thus, Title 8 of the CFR deals with “Aliens and Nationality”, as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code.”
You can of course point to which paragraphs use the words "natural born citizen".
Congress legislated it.
Yes they did, under their power to define a uniform rule of naturalization Thus anyone who is a citizen only because they satisfy one of the 8 USC 1401 requirements, is a naturalized, albeit at birth, citizen. (Except for the first, which is a restatement of the 14th amendment's "born in the United States", and could be left out of the law without changing anything)
Where did I ever say the announcements were photoshopped?
Very good summary, thanks.
Even if Title 8 was codified into positive law, and it’s not, it wouldn’t trump the Constitution.
Which “title” was in play regarding the clean air act? Has that code been enacted into positive law? What constitutional questions were in play?
I forgot to link to the “positive law” on citizenship from the statuatory US Code of Laws:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
8 USC 1401 is part of the US code, laws passed by Congress. Title 8 CFR contains the implementing regulations. For 8 USC 1401 the regulations depending upon it are 8 CFR 301.
Of course it does. But it does not define "Natural Born Citizen", nor could it.
How do you determine which presidents were actually eligible before enactment of the 14th Amendment? What made Lincoln, for instance, a "natural born citizen", since you seem to believe that people born on US soil to US citizen parents weren't natural born citizens prior to 1868.
I think there is some confusion between Title 8 USC and Title 8 CFR. Both deal with the same subject matter, but one is statute law, the other is administrative regulations (that being what the "R" in CFR stands for.
I wouldn't be so certain. But, being pissed off does tend to focus their minds a bit.
Nice theory, but not one that has been tested at the Supreme Court. In fact they have ruled that persons born outside the US, but still citizens at birth by statute, are naturalized for Constitutional purposes.
But even if there are only two ways to acquire citizenship, that doesn't mean they are not distinctions within each type. And in fact SCOTUS has indicated just such distinctions within the "naturalized" group. That is "naturalized in the US" per the 14th amendment, and "naturalized at birth outside the US". They have not ruled on the meaning of Natural born citizen in any case where that status matters. Not surprising since it only matters for eligibility to the office of President.
Statutes do not trump the Constitution. Period.
Title 40 has been enacted into positive law. If it wasn’t found to be at odds with the Constitution, it stands as law.
Title 8 has not been enacted into positive law. I’m not sure why you don’t want to acknowledge that. It seems desperate of you not to acknowledge it.
So, you are maintaining that the Executive branch can make laws?
Someone needs to tell Madison and the others who wrote:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
and
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Considering how the HI DOH behaves when asked questions, I am sure and certain that no straight answer will be given by the leftist HI newspapesr.
They were rotten and leftist even when I was in HI many years ago.
Plus, they’ve probably gotten asked that hundreds of time by now and have a stock answer, which may or may not be accurate or truthful, and there is no way to know.
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.