Research Help: Spiro Agnew a Natural Born Citizen?

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.

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.

So was his VIRGINIA BORN wife, [...]

YES! Notice how the "A" in those boxes are different? It's obviously a fake!

Also, have you heard the claim that the originals of these census forms were "destroyed in the 1940s"...as if we'd fall for that line. Remember, in the 1940s, Spiro Agnew was in foreign countries!

In fact, at the same time, there were many unsavory characters in Europe, such as Hitler. There's no proof that Spiro Agnew wasn't working with Hitler, so it must be true.

After all, there are never any discrepancies on documents, right?

Now, to get you back on topic, if you click the little "To #" part under this post, and keep doing it, you'll find yourself up-thread and see that the truth of his Alien status was not the point of the thread of discussion. It was the fact that discrepancies such as the "1920/1930" and "a/A" would be considered proof of fraud if they were part of President Obama's documentation.

No, they are NBS by common law, not statue, and the US followed England.

No, the NBS may be common law to England but it is NOT natural or common to the United States.

The US Constitution is unambiguous - we are citizens by birth, something Vattel calls naturalization - but again, US law does NOT call that naturalization. Naturalization is what is done for someone born elsewhere, and falls under Congress, not the Constitution.

That's what I meant as being "unambiguous."...that the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution is a direct reference to natural law, and the Brit empire law(s) of Natural Born Subjects are man-made statute(s) that was made to controlled conquered lands occupied by indigenous populations. It's made up and not natural. You didn't comprehend again. Naturalization is a process to make people citizens by law as de Vattel clearly states.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802,

Do you really have any reason to keep posting stuff without making any cognizant point? You do just post willy nilly. Children born abroad of Americans may become citizens of the foreign countries by statute, which has been explained to you and that doesn't make them natural born citizens, which is the main point.

and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So this is your point I suppose. Poeple who immigrated to the US were not made instant US citizens. There was Naturalization Act law that had to be followed. When a father of a family naturalized not only did the father become a new US citizen, the whole immediate family of wife and children became US citizens. That is citizenship by blood and marriage. They followed the rights and privileges of their respective fathers and husbands. You can see this for yourself by looking through US archives of people who became citizens.

What you put up is not proof that only jus soli births is what the Founders meant in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Post 254 takes that assertion apart.

I don't see the post you reference prove the Founder's intent - where does it do that?

And we also have a quote from George Mason, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” This quote by George Mason, a Founding Father, has bearing.

James Madison is "Father of the Constitution" so I would take his opinion over that of other Founders. I also refer you to post 165, which contains the full George Mason quote:

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.

Mason is not denying English Common Law, he is concerned that it won't apply in the US, and that bad consequences will result from the lack of a check on "dismemberment of the empire." However, his fears proved unfounded, and American judges have turned to British Common Law to resolve questions.

James Madison is "Father of the Constitution" so I would take his opinion over that of other Founders.

OK, I'll take the father of our nation George Washington and he was the Constitutional Convention president over Madison. And he listened to the first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay who sent Washington a letter that a "strong check against foreign influences" should be held for the Executive that he be only a natural born citizen, which was changed from "born a citizen" written in Alexander Hamilton's first draft to natural born citizen.

There was no debate over this as they all understood at the time who were natural born citizens. The founding fathers knew they were not natural born citizens as they also wrote into the Constitution the grandfather clause. As they were born only jus soli births to the land and Madison understood this as well - that he was not an NBC. That only citizens can give birth to natural born citizens.

Golly. Every court disagrees with you. Guess it is all part of a huge conspiracy!

Every NBS in the colonies became a NBC in the US. No exceptions. I’ve cited multiple court cases, but you don’t care because you worship Vattel - who has ZERO influence on citizenship in the USA. And NBS was NOT based on laws of Parliament, but on common law - and the DEFINITION was carried over by the states and the Constitution.

States that had NBS in their laws changed it to NBC without any further modification - because the meaning was unchanged.

Vattel’s theory of citizenship following the father has NEVER been the law in the USA. There is not a single case of someone being born in the US who was denied citizenship based on the father.

Nor is there any case where a NBC has been held to be different than a native citizen or a born citizen or a citizen by birth.

You Vattel-worshipers can bow to you deity as much as you want, but not a single court in the USA ever has or will.

“The WKA ruling declared WKA a CITIZEN, NOT, REPEAT NOT, NEVER a “natural born Citizen”.”

Odd. The judge writing the dissent thought it did! But you would say they spent half the decision discussing something irrelevant - while every court since has followed WKA.

Oh well! Live in your fantasy world with the other idiots at WorldNutDaily!

So one can’t reasonably claim the Constitution based a particular thing on Vattel, without proof and no one has shown any. There is however, the Madison quote, showing what the “Father of the Constitution” thought about this.

The much used, abused, and misrepresented quote from Madison actually supports Vattel's Law of Nations, but it is extremely doubtful you could get the naysayers to even attempt an understanding of the historical reasons why this is so.

Vattel is quoted simply because John Jay, the subsequent first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, directly cited it as one source for his request to put the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution. That being so does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that Vattel was reporting upon, explaining, and describing what had already been written about the concept in previous treatises on the Law of Nations and the laws and customs practiced by by the international community in prior centuries. To deny and ridicule the importance of Vattel and his work with respect to defining the meaning of the natural born citizen clause also constitutes a denial and ridicule of the works and histories used to compile his work.

The common law cited is often misrepresents and substitutes British common law for the American common law actually used by the Founding Fathers in their deliberations. Likewise, those who wrongly try to argue that the British common law contradicts Vattel fail to understand the very British common law they are citing or its own origins. I am quite certain this observation will invite the most vitriolic attacks. Nonetheless, those who attack the statement I am also quite certain will be unable to understand and unwilling to acknowledge the historical precedents which support the observation. The misuse of Madison's quotation would seem to support these conclusions.

Yes, they wanted natural born citizens. But they didn't specifically define it, so your conclusion doesn't follow. Washington never defined it to my knowledge (and if you know differently, please cite or link). You are assuming a certain definition, but the courts do not agree with you, James Madison did not agree with you, and the fact that the Constitution and American law is heavily based on Common Law argues against you.

The founding fathers knew they were not natural born citizens as they also wrote into the Constitution the grandfather clause. As they were born only jus soli births to the land and Madison understood this as well - that he was not an NBC.

No, they weren't even jus soli; they were born British subjects because the United States did not exist at the time of their birth - necessitating the grandfather clause.

Yes, they wanted natural born citizens. But they didn't specifically define it, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

It follows completely. when the Hamilton Constitutional draft was changed from "Born Citizen" to Natural Born Citizen" leaves no wiggle room. They didn't go with the British man-made law of 'Natural Born Subject,' which is jus soli citizen births inside the British Empire, but went with natural law as stated in de Vattel's Law of Nations.

You are assuming a certain definition, but the courts do not agree with you,

Au contraire, the Supreme Courts do agree with me as they have said more than once stating who are natural born. citizens. What the Supreme Courts haven't done so far is say it in their holdings specifically on Article 2, Section, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. However, they did state in 1939 in their holding that Marie Elg was a Natural Born Citizen. Elg was born inside the United States and born to US citizen parents. The essence of being a natural born citizen.

You’re making a conclusion based upon a guess.

A guess? I'm not guessing that the Framers intended for our presidents to be born on US soil to two US citizen parents, to ensure their natural and undivided allegiance to THIS country.

It's no guess to state the fact that Obama was born with a naturally DIVIDED allegiance, and that his unceasing display of anti-Americanism has proven the sound wisdom of the Framers' original intent.

The much used, abused, and misrepresented quote from Madison actually supports Vattel's Law of Nations,

Please tell me how it supports Vattel for this matter? They appear to have different opinions.

To deny and ridicule the importance of Vattel and his work with respect to defining the meaning of the natural born citizen clause also constitutes a denial and ridicule of the works and histories used to compile his work.

Vattel was an important writer on the law of nations. However, not all nations agreed with every aspect of what he wrote. There were several things in his book you probably wouldn't agree with, such as rulers having the right to give over their subjects as hostages. If you want to consider that denial and ridicule, enjoy.

Likewise, those who wrongly try to argue that the British common law contradicts Vattel fail to understand the very British common law they are citing or its own origins.

Ok, please show how we are misunderstanding English Common Law, that you claim actually agrees with Vattel. And while you're at it, show how Madison's quote doesn't say what it appears to say.

Mason is not denying English Common Law, he is concerned that it won't apply in the US, and that bad consequences will result from the lack of a check on "dismemberment of the empire."

Mason - "...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."

No. Actually, George Mason was concerned that our Constitution would not be enough to hold off Great Britain of reasserting their power and dominion over their former colonies the United States.

Mason does not take away anything in the expanded quote from this part of it that
, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

As his quote still stands alone that the United States common law is not the same as English common law.

However, his fears proved unfounded, and American judges have turned to British Common Law to resolve questions.

And actually his fears were founded to be correct that culminated in the war of 1812. Great Britain kidnapped US citizen sailors forcing them into manning their sea vessels. They would say, 'Once a Englishman always an Englishman.' As Britain at the time did not recognize the process of renouncing citizenship.

Still waiting for proof of this, besides your opinion.

Uuuumm it's pretty obvious when Alexander Hamilton changed the Constitutional draft in July 1787 from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural Born Citizen' as they are of two different meanings and after George Washington received the letter from John Jay who was in New York.

What's left then? A process of elimination if not jus soli citizenship is a criteria to be president - it is a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship - a natural born citizenship.

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.