Posted on 05/08/2011 8:40:39 AM PDT by rhubarbb
Sorry if this is in the wrong area, this is my first time posting. I'm a long-time lurker who loves FR and I use what I learn all the time against my friends, some of whom (Unfortunately) are liberal. It's the price of going to a big college. I'm really good about speaking the truth to them and showing how they're wrong, and most of my best arguments come from FR. But there's been one question that one of my friends keeps repeating and while I know he's wrong I can't prove it and it's bugging me.
I know the best researchers are here and I figured someone here has figured out how to set the Obama-bots straight on the issue. I've searched through all the other threads on eligibility and didn't find anything.
======
My friend says that Spio Agnew (Nixon's VP) proves that you don't need two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Now, I know that the Vice President must meet the same elgibility requirements as the President, and therefore must also be a Natural Born Citizen (12th Amendment). My friend claims that Spiro Agnew's father was a Greek Citizen when he was born. I've tried to find any information to confirm and deny this, but can't find anything. I know he's wrong (he's a Dem... haha) but need help with the proof.
I can't see Nixon choosing someone, and the Republicans electing, a vice president that was obviously unqualified for office.
So my question:
Is this true? Have one of the researcher's looked into Agnew's citizenship? Did Nixon choose a VP that was not a Natural Born Citizen? And if so, did he hide it like Chester A. Arthur did? I figure that one of the reasons I can't find any information on it might be because he did the "hide your past" thing like Arthur.
Any help would be great and help to take a liberal down!!
Thank you. Your posts have been helpful and informative.
Agreed. I'll leave you with one last thought.
If a tactic has no use, it has no value.
I doesn't matter how noble your intentions are if your tactics won't achieve your goals.
Moreover, if you find yourself wondering why the GOP, other conservatives, or the world in general is ignoring you, or actively turning hostile on you, it's not because you're wrong in principle. It's because your tactics are not in sync with achieving your goals. They're at best a distraction, and at worst, actively helping Obama stay in power.
It is not a lie.
The first draft of the Constitution, distributed on 22 Aug, had only a residency requirement.
And the phrase NBC was well known, used by the states prior to the Constitution, and had a long legal history in its English version, natural born subject.
All were U.S. Citizens, but none were "natural born" U.S. Citizens. However they were exempted (grandfathered) by the Constitution. Citizenship "by birth" is not equal to "natural born" Citizenship....
--
From the U.S. Constitution Section 1 - The President
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
As an example of your errors:
The Venus case involved international law, not US law - thus Vattel. “Natural born” doesn’t appear in the decision.
1830 Shanks vs. Dupont emphasizes birth as the test of citizenship.
Minor makes no attempt to determine who is a NBC, specifically saying it isn’t relevant to the case.
WKA emphatically declares that the meaning of NBC is found in English common law, and that natural born subject is the equivalent of natural born citizen. It was the DISSENT that disagrees, but dissents do not make law.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Every NBS became a NBC at independence. There were numerous court cases, and all agreed - a natural born subject in the colonies became, at independence, a natural born citizen of the US.
There is no case of a natural born subject being told they were not a natural born citizen because they didn’t have citizen parents. It was a 100% switch.
The grandfather clause affected people like John Laurance of New York, who was born in England but who was also next in line behind the VP for the Presidency. It also allowed Alexander Hamilton the option of running.
What cases? Name one. English Law?
Your statement is 100% incorrect. English subject does not equal U.S. citizen. U.S. law does/did not equal English law.
Legislation on the matter wouldn’t be enough. You would need to amend the Constitution to change that. A few years ago, Sen. Inhofe tried to change it....never left committee. People, everyone in Washington, including media folk, know he’s not Constitutionally eligible. But they have long memories. They remember Clinton’s impeachment. The Senate will do nothing. I lost all respect for the Senate back then. They never once - not one of them - looked at the evidence. They won’t now either. They all need to be replaced, repeatedly until we have people who actually represent us and live up to their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend NOT Obama, NOT the presidency, but the Constitution.
No, that’s native born, not natural born.
Feel free to dig thru the citations listed in this decision:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
Also Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830)
“It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgement of their independence...
...”James Ludlow, the father of Frances May, the lessor of the plaintiff, was undoubtedly born a subject of Great Britain. He was born in a part of America which was at the time of his birth a British colony and parcel of the dominions of the Crown of Great Britain; but upon the fact found, we are of opinion that he was not a subject of the Crown of Great Britain at the time of the birth of his daughter. She was born after the independence of the colonies was recognized by the Crown of Great Britain, after the colonies had become United States, and their inhabitants generally citizens of those states. And her father, by his continued residence in those states, manifestly became a citizen of them...
...he British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British government, they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens...”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html
“The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof...
...Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806)
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth ; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.” “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.”
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
There’s that theory for both of them of course.
For my own part, I never heard it denied that such a power must be vested in the government. Our complaint is, that it is not sufficiently guarded, and that it requires much more solemnity and caution than are delineated in that system. It is more guarded in England. ...Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition--in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.It is clear from the context that George Mason is concerned about Article 2, and that not having English Common Law could mean individual states or groups of states make separate treaties, and that the United States could fall apart. However, happily for Mr. Mason, the courts have consistently turned back to English Common Law when deciding cases.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
Those of you who say that this should be dropped aren’t questioning the facts, just the convenience?
This qualification is one of the most specific parts of the Constitution. It is there FOR A REASON.
This usurpation of the White House is no different than a division of Red Chinese descending on Washington D.C., putting everybody against a wall and taking over.
I guess if I presented a fake ID to the local authorities, I could just take over your entire life and push you out and you wouldn’t say a word. Maybe your wife would appreciate it in fact. (I usually take out the garbage.)
Do any of you people who are berating the ‘birthers’ believe in anything? Are you so brain dead from watching “Dancing With The Stars” that you are incapable of analysis of where this leads?
Since most of you are probably products of the public schools, first we will define some terms:
eligibility;
moral;
ethical;
TREASON.
Oh, sorry. Pop culture considers that hate speech.
Let’s try:
SURVIVAL.........
It doesn’t.
Military bases are us property or posession.
Obamama’s dad was not american!
Our scotus will not convict him because he’s black.
You know they can’t do that without admitting why it’s even coming up. They won’t even admit there’s a problem. We are all just extremists or loco. Or racist. Yeah, I’ve heard lots of that. Find a legislator willing to bring up the issue on the floor of either house....I’ll buy you a beer.
Noob, possible troll:
rhubarbb
Since May 7, 2011
rhubarbb hasn't created an about page
0’bs father was a British subject, the BC means nothing. The SCOTUS, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. are in on the TREASON!!!!
If Congress fails to act State legislation is fine.
If Congress fails to act State legislation is fine.
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.